Ideas about why I am not losing weight?
Replies
-
cerise_noir wrote: »LCHF is a way to CICO......
Just without the need to weigh / count calories (usually depending on the person). Much easier IMO
So, you just choose not to literally count calories. That's wonderful.
3 -
All this mumbo jumbo aside, you're not eating enough. Not nearly enough.
I have been on and off diets all my life (and hope now to finally make a lifestyle change) and I can tell you when I cut my calories too short I don't lose weight. I can eat very, very clean and work out everyday, but if I go below 1500 calories I do not lose weight.
I will tell you the honest truth too once you up your eating after all this low calorie restriction you are going to gain weight. You've messed with your body's BMR and there will be consequences. Honestly, if I were you, I'd give the whole thing up for a week or two and then start fresh eating a healthy amount of calories because your body needs to reset. Either way it goes you should see a small gain then followed by steady losses.
Also, if you can work out on only the few amount of calories you are allowing yourself you are not working out hard enough. Several years ago I got the bright idea to restrict myself to 1300 calories a day (most days far, far below that) and go to the gym 4-5 times a week working out at moderate intensity. My body literally gave up on me and I blacked out while at the gym. I also felt weak and light headed a great deal of the time.2 -
cerise_noir wrote: »LCHF is a way to CICO......
Just without the need to weigh / count calories (usually depending on the person). Much easier IMO
Umm, no. You still need to weigh and count calories to accurately implement CICO. It doesn't matter how your macros are balanced or what types of food you eat. No weighing or calorie counting and it's all just guessing and keeping your fingers crossed that your guess was good enough. Unnecessary stress IMO.2 -
OP, sorry but what you say is simply not possible. You might as well claim you are flying. You do not maintain this kind of weight with what you eat, and fine tuning 3 grams here and 4 grams there will change nothing. And there is no medical condition affecting metabolism that can make you maintain this weight with these calories, not even if you are in a coma. So, the only reasonable conclusion, and I am not intending to offend, is you are either consciously or subconsciously, lying. If you are really lying, as in eating 3000 calories and claiming otherwise and knowing you are lying, I cannot see the purpose, so I am guessing this is not so. So, for whatever reason, you are somehow lying to yourself. You need more than 2000 calories to maintain this weight, and saying this is not what you are eating simply defies science and logic. So, maybe you are snacking in between and prefer to ignore it, maybe you are using a food scale that is not measuring what you think it does (i.e. mixing lbs with kilos), you are reading completely wrong data (e.g. confusing the serving calories with the 100 gram calories on packages) etc.
The only alternative would be something very wrong with your body, like massive water retention or a huge tumor etc, but again I am pretty sure you would have noticed.7 -
After many years of trying to lose weight this is what I learned, don't try to lose weight, it may seem weird but it is true. If you focus on getting fitter and eating healthy the weight will fall off anyway and even when you go through weight loss plateaus you will realise that still be performing better. Put your faith in your performance not the scales that way you will not become unmotivated during plateaus.
Anyway here are some tips for getting past a weight loss plateau
Increase/decrease intensity/duration
increase/decrease days trained
Increase/decrease calorie intake
Change cardio exercises
Introduce weight training0 -
I am 5'6, 230lbs, 35yrs old. I have been meticulous for the last 45 days about logging everything I eat. I weigh solids and measure liquids. (I even log my vitamins) I ride my bike 4.5-5 miles 5 days a week (logged through MapMyFitness) and do cardio exercises (T25 videos) 3-5 days a week. My calorie goal is 1100 a day, leaning towards more protein. I usually have between 90-100g protein (especially the days I do cardio). I feel stronger during the workouts, particularly this past week. I can do some of the ab exercises I could not do at the beginning, for example.
So it's been 45 days, and.. nothing. No change in weight. I don't feel fatigued or hungry at the end of the day. I don't want to give up, but I am just baffled why I am not losing. My diary is open also if anyone has suggestions.
I was in your boat for the longest time. Getting the weight-loss ball rolling is hard to do. Don't get discouraged. I would double down on your record keeping, to make sure you are actually recording things properly. Getting a food scale might be a good call.
Losing weight comes down to the calories in being less than the calories out. But there is a nuance to that. That is your METABOLISM. If you take in very small amounts of calories, you're body will compensate for that and slow down your metabolism, negating your efforts. One way around this is to carb-cycle. That is to eat low carbs for a few days then have a sort of "carb refeed day." This will ensure your metabolism keeps burning away. One alternative would be to try a supplement, a guy just started a thread on that here so you can check that out if you want to go that route.-1 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »LCHF is not for everyone. all that matters for most healthy people is CICO. it doesnt matter if carbs are high or not,if you are in a true deficit you will lose weight(again unless you have health issues,which is case could cause weight loss to slow down or not happen).just because this worked for you and improved your health markers doesnt mean it will for others.people like me who have FH(familial hypercholesterolemia) cannot do keto/LCHF due to the high fat.
Where did I suggest it was for everyone? I was merely offering an alternative to what would normally be the same CICO answers.
I pointed out quite clearly that it worked for me and if the OP wanted to try it the could simply search for it. I only pointed out that my health markers improved because everyone is usually fat phobic and thinks that by following a diet higher in fat will mean their health will get worse. Well for most this isn't an issue and granted, in your situation it may be due to your FH.
LCHF isn't for everyone just like CICO isn't for me, but it is still an option if the OP wanted to try it. Don't be so quick to discredit because it isn't for you.
I think you might be confusing CICO with something it isn't. CICO is merely energy balance, not anything about macros.
Anyone losing weight is operating within the bounds of CICO. It's simply a statement of energy intake vs. expenditure.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
40 days isn't anywhere near enough to cause any sort of metabolic adaptation. Nowhere near. She'd have to be eating at severe restriction for months and months. None of what you're saying applies to the OP.
Even at that, recent analysis of the data on metabolic adaptation is showing it to be more a matter of decreased movement than anything else. Also, as dieting goes on, there is a sort of relaxing of compliance that seems to take place. A lot of what seems to be plateauing of weight loss due to "adaptation" is really due to non-compliance.
Read some of Lyle McDonald's writings on metabolic adaptation if you want further explanation of what I'm on about.
Also, regarding your fascination with hydration (I'm a big fan myself), I'm not entirely certain that concentration camp victims were adequately hydrated. That didn't seem to inhibit their fat loss on severe caloric restriction.
"Metabolic adaptation" is not like flipping an on/off switch. There are many different biochemical factors in metabolic rate and the effects of metabolic adaptations are likely somewhat gradual, which is to say that they can and do occur to varying degrees over time depending on a number of factors. Months and months are not required to START seeing adaptations, but may be required to reach the LIMIT of adaptation. That being said, no amount of metabolic adaptation in and of itself will completely overcome a legitimate sustained caloric deficit, just like no amount of dehydration short of causing death can in and of itself completely halt fat loss.
I would be willing to bet that inadequately hydrated concentration camp victims would indeed have had their fat metabolisms slowed (not halted, but slowed), and as such, they would also likely have experienced faster loss of lean muscle tissue. I could be wrong, and I am not in a position to study those circumstances first hand (nor would I want to).
I obviously don't know the original poster, so I can only speculate as to what MIGHT be CONTRIBUTING FACTORS in what they are experiencing. It could well just be a case of under reporting caloric intake, but I get the impression that unless they are sleep-eating she likely isn't off on her estimates by enough to fully account for her stagnant scale weight.
If we take her at her word that she is meticulous about recording everything and is reasonably accurate regarding actual quantities of the things she consumes, then my best GUESS is that insufficient hydration, some metabolic adaptation, and elevated cortisol levels ALL play a role. I don't think any one of them by itself is enough to account for the scale weight, and I'm not even sure all three together could account for it (but if they are factors at all, there are likely still others, such as insufficient sleep). If I am wrong about hydration, there is nothing wrong with drinking a bit more water (unless she is already drinking way too much); if I am wrong about metabolic adaptation, there is nothing wrong with very occasionally having a couple of larger meals (unless they trigger extended bouts of binge eating); if I am wrong about cortisol levels, there is nothing wrong with taking steps to reduce stress.
I'll give you credit, you can talk a good game, but you still don't understand metabolic adaptation.
Kudos to you for stringing words together well.4 -
cerise_noir wrote: »LCHF is a way to CICO......
Just without the need to weigh / count calories (usually depending on the person). Much easier IMO
Calorie counting isn't CICO.3 -
All this mumbo jumbo aside, you're not eating enough. Not nearly enough.
I have been on and off diets all my life (and hope now to finally make a lifestyle change) and I can tell you when I cut my calories too short I don't lose weight. I can eat very, very clean and work out everyday, but if I go below 1500 calories I do not lose weight.
I will tell you the honest truth too once you up your eating after all this low calorie restriction you are going to gain weight. You've messed with your body's BMR and there will be consequences. Honestly, if I were you, I'd give the whole thing up for a week or two and then start fresh eating a healthy amount of calories because your body needs to reset. Either way it goes you should see a small gain then followed by steady losses.
Also, if you can work out on only the few amount of calories you are allowing yourself you are not working out hard enough. Several years ago I got the bright idea to restrict myself to 1300 calories a day (most days far, far below that) and go to the gym 4-5 times a week working out at moderate intensity. My body literally gave up on me and I blacked out while at the gym. I also felt weak and light headed a great deal of the time.
Eh... you can't "reset" your body, it doesn't need resetting.
She's already been advised to up her calories AND activity because the way this works is that when you increase the calories and activity together the net effect is essentially the same sort of deficit, but the metabolic impact on your hormone levels isn't as drastic.
This is what you think you're getting at here, but aren't quite nailing.4 -
OP, sorry but what you say is simply not possible. You might as well claim you are flying. You do not maintain this kind of weight with what you eat, and fine tuning 3 grams here and 4 grams there will change nothing. And there is no medical condition affecting metabolism that can make you maintain this weight with these calories, not even if you are in a coma. So, the only reasonable conclusion, and I am not intending to offend, is you are either consciously or subconsciously, lying. If you are really lying, as in eating 3000 calories and claiming otherwise and knowing you are lying, I cannot see the purpose, so I am guessing this is not so. So, for whatever reason, you are somehow lying to yourself. You need more than 2000 calories to maintain this weight, and saying this is not what you are eating simply defies science and logic. So, maybe you are snacking in between and prefer to ignore it, maybe you are using a food scale that is not measuring what you think it does (i.e. mixing lbs with kilos), you are reading completely wrong data (e.g. confusing the serving calories with the 100 gram calories on packages) etc.
The only alternative would be something very wrong with your body, like massive water retention or a huge tumor etc, but again I am pretty sure you would have noticed.
Cortisol? How does cortisol factor in to CO? Specifically, how does cortisol factor into OP's CO? OP works in a science lab; to suggest she can't tell the difference between the words "pounds" and "kilos" is, quite frankly, more farfetched than the idea that she may actually be an outlier.1 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »OP, sorry but what you say is simply not possible. You might as well claim you are flying. You do not maintain this kind of weight with what you eat, and fine tuning 3 grams here and 4 grams there will change nothing. And there is no medical condition affecting metabolism that can make you maintain this weight with these calories, not even if you are in a coma. So, the only reasonable conclusion, and I am not intending to offend, is you are either consciously or subconsciously, lying. If you are really lying, as in eating 3000 calories and claiming otherwise and knowing you are lying, I cannot see the purpose, so I am guessing this is not so. So, for whatever reason, you are somehow lying to yourself. You need more than 2000 calories to maintain this weight, and saying this is not what you are eating simply defies science and logic. So, maybe you are snacking in between and prefer to ignore it, maybe you are using a food scale that is not measuring what you think it does (i.e. mixing lbs with kilos), you are reading completely wrong data (e.g. confusing the serving calories with the 100 gram calories on packages) etc.
The only alternative would be something very wrong with your body, like massive water retention or a huge tumor etc, but again I am pretty sure you would have noticed.
Cortisol? How does cortisol factor in to CO? Specifically, how does cortisol factor into OP's CO? OP works in a science lab; to suggest she can't tell the difference between the words "pounds" and "kilos" is, quite frankly, more farfetched than the idea that she may actually be an outlier.
Except, there are no outliers, not at this scale. If what a person claims defies the laws of physics, this claim is false. Either intentionally or unintentionally. Simple as that. Laws of thermodynamics apply to all of us. Had the post said "I have no energy, can no longer force myself to leave the house, I am dropping asleep mid-sentence" or something similar, then things might have been different. But the claim is "I manage to work, exercise, live a normal life and maintain 230 lbs on about 1000 calories per day". Which is not possible, as it goes against physics, sorry.1 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »OP, sorry but what you say is simply not possible. You might as well claim you are flying. You do not maintain this kind of weight with what you eat, and fine tuning 3 grams here and 4 grams there will change nothing. And there is no medical condition affecting metabolism that can make you maintain this weight with these calories, not even if you are in a coma. So, the only reasonable conclusion, and I am not intending to offend, is you are either consciously or subconsciously, lying. If you are really lying, as in eating 3000 calories and claiming otherwise and knowing you are lying, I cannot see the purpose, so I am guessing this is not so. So, for whatever reason, you are somehow lying to yourself. You need more than 2000 calories to maintain this weight, and saying this is not what you are eating simply defies science and logic. So, maybe you are snacking in between and prefer to ignore it, maybe you are using a food scale that is not measuring what you think it does (i.e. mixing lbs with kilos), you are reading completely wrong data (e.g. confusing the serving calories with the 100 gram calories on packages) etc.
The only alternative would be something very wrong with your body, like massive water retention or a huge tumor etc, but again I am pretty sure you would have noticed.
Cortisol? How does cortisol factor in to CO? Specifically, how does cortisol factor into OP's CO? OP works in a science lab; to suggest she can't tell the difference between the words "pounds" and "kilos" is, quite frankly, more farfetched than the idea that she may actually be an outlier.
Except, there are no outliers, not at this scale. If what a person claims defies the laws of physics, this claim is false. Either intentionally or unintentionally. Simple as that. Laws of thermodynamics apply to all of us. Had the post said "I have no energy, can no longer force myself to leave the house, I am dropping asleep mid-sentence" or something similar, then things might have been different. But the claim is "I manage to work, exercise, live a normal life and maintain 230 lbs on about 1000 calories per day". Which is not possible, as it goes against physics, sorry.
I am guessing your claim that there are no outliers at this scale is simply wrong. It would be extremely rare, and the person who worked through the numbers made that clear. It is far more likely it is something else. I am going to give the OP the benefit of the doubt that she weighs everything excepting those things she admits to not weighing as I have often done the same thing, weigh my portion and then figure out what that equates to in terms of the volume measure that has the correct information in the database so that the calories are correct. It has often lead to some odd entries, but it worked fine to get the calories correct. It was just an extra step. Now I either correct an entry by putting in grams (if they are non verified) or make my own as it is far easier entering the grams than figuring out the conversion. I am guessing it is a combination of the OP being a slight outlier make the required calories lower (possibly due to medical issues) along with logging errors or something similar. At this point the OP is going to start weighing those thing that were not being weighed, so that will cut back on logging errors. Also the OP will be checking database entries to personally verify them, which will also help. Hopefully that will clear things up, but for now, giving the OP the benefit of the doubt that what we have been told is true, this is a confusing situation.2 -
Protein powder: The scoop in my tub of Body Fortress protein powder can easily deliver more than 110% of the serving of 50 grams. These days I place the tumbler on the scale, zero the scale, remove a scoop of powder from the tub, and then using a butter knife I trickle little bits of powder into the tumbler and monitor the scale. When the scale reads '45', I very carefully add little bits of powder letting the scale settle after each little bit until the scale reads '50', then I stop. I put the remaining powder back in the tub. I've noticed I'm spending less on protein powder.
Spray oil in your pan: I once put my clean skillet on the scale and measured its weight. Then I sprayed oil into it. The oil increased the weight of the skillet by 1 g. Now, I just log 1g of oil on every meal in which I spray oil into the skillet.
1 -
After many years of trying to lose weight this is what I learned, don't try to lose weight, it may seem weird but it is true. If you focus on getting fitter and eating healthy the weight will fall off anyway and even when you go through weight loss plateaus you will realise that still be performing better. Put your faith in your performance not the scales that way you will not become unmotivated during plateaus.
Anyway here are some tips for getting past a weight loss plateau
Increase/decrease intensity/duration
increase/decrease days trained
Increase/decrease calorie intake
Change cardio exercises
Introduce weight training
That will work for some people and is worth trying. It doesn't work for everyone though. I had a lot of pregnancy weight to lose, and at first I focused on working out and eating healthy foods. I lost weight excrutiatingly slowly then hit a "plateau" because my body simply doesn't send me good signals about when it's full. The only opportunity I have to properly portion control is when I'm putting the food on the plate. As soon as I started accurately weighing and logging my intake, my weight loss ramped up (and I wasn't starving myself or doing the "diet food" thing; just limiting myself to proper portions of food).1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I'll give you credit, you can talk a good game, but you still don't understand metabolic adaptation.
Kudos to you for stringing words together well.
You're right! I don't fully understand metabolic adaptation. I'm not sure there is anyone who does. There are people who make a living studying metabolic adaptation (or try to), and I suspect that such researchers are likely better informed on the topic than either of us (unless you are yourself such a person, which is indeed possible).
That being said, I am not completely ignorant on the subject and my ability to "talk a good game" isn't just about stringing words together well. Still, I thank you for the Kudos.
I would contend that given that our DNA contains all of the instructions for our bodily construction and operation, epigenetics (the process by which the expression and operation of different genes are changed without actually changing the DNA itself) is largely responsible for any metabolic adaptations people experience. Since not everyone shares 100% of the same DNA and epigentics cannot turn on/off genes that aren't present in an individual, not everyone is going to experience exactly the same epigentic changes in response to their environments/behaviors.
Epigenetic changes occur on the outside of the gene, mainly through a process called methylation. In methylation, clusters of atoms, called methyl groups, attach to the outside of a gene making it more or less able to receive and respond to biochemical signals from the body (kind of like a dimmer switch on the expression of a given gene).
Nutritional deficiencies, caloric surplus/deficit, exercise, etc can all induce changes in the methylation patterns in our genes.
This Swedish study (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308802037_The_Impact_of_Endurance_Training_on_Human_Skeletal_Muscle_Memory_Global_Isoform_Expression_and_Novel_Transcripts) identified 3404 gene isoforms that undergo epigenetic changes during the course of 3 months of training, mostly associated with oxidative ATP production (i.e. conversion of chemical energy into one of the forms usable by human cells; i.e. related to metabolism and metabolic rate).
This meta-analysis of a number of studies (http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/03/30/bjsports-2014-094073.short) shows that exercise-associated DNA methylation is even more pronounced in older individuals (although in their case the increased epigentic variation is associated with activating cancer suppressing genes rather than those associated with metabolism).
This study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26977389), while not overly useful in prescribing human diets (as it is a rat study), does show that dietary composition can cause epigenetic changes that affect both the metabolism of the rats being fed (in this case a high fat diet) and their offspring (that's right, epigenetic markers can be inherited).
Here is a study (http://www.fasebj.org/content/25/4/1378.short) linking genetic and epigenetic differences in overweight individuals maintaining 8 weeks of caloric restriction to differences in weight loss outcomes (i.e. differences in metabolic rates beyond those expected by physiological difference between participants).
Here is a study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18809715) that found just a 6 hour period of elevated blood-glucose was enough to induce long lasting epigentic changes. Granted, it would be highly unlikely to experience elevated blood-glucose for that long with normal eating, but it DOES show that epigenetic changes and the beginnings of metabolic adaptations can happen very quickly.
I agree that metabolic adaptation is likely never the lone contributing factor in unsuccessful attempts at weight loss, and I agree that the role of metabolic adaptation is often exaggerated and incorrectly attributed to simply number of calories. Epigenetic changes can be induced by all kinds of things. Some are related to metabolism, some are not, some changes are made quickly (relatively) in response to the triggering stimuli, some require longer periods of sustained or repeated exposure to triggering stimuli to be induced.
Because there are so many factors that can affect epigenetics, it can be difficult to determine causes for individual changes (which is part of why the Swedish study I referenced had its participants exercise only one side of their body in hopes that localized epigentic changes would allow them to isolate those attributable specifically to the exercise).
Compared to what it is possible to know about metabolic adaptation, I admit that I know almost nothing, but given the research and scientific literature I have seen, I have every reason to believe that metabolic changes can and do occur surprisingly quickly, that chronic patterns are likely to increase the extent of such changes, and that there is at very least the potential for a temporary increase in food consumption (or a more permanent smaller increase in food consumption) to improve one's overall ability to lose weight (whether the mechanism involved be related to a reduction/correction in some nutritional deficiency, a reduced negative impact on metabolic hormones, the triggering of epigenetic changes related to metabolic rate, a reduction in perceived stress, some combination thereof, or something else entirely).
I am always happy to read more and become better informed, and I am not opposed to considering research that refutes anything I have said. I have, as per your suggestion, read much of the literature on metabolic adaptation put out by Lyle McDonald (and in some cases re-read as not everything of his I came across was new to me). Perhaps I missed something, but I didn't find anything in what I found of his writings that is inconsistent with what I have written here. He warns against trying to pin failure to lose weigh solely on metabolic adaptation related to caloric restriction when more often than not there are highly inaccurate assumptions being made about both caloric intake and caloric expenditure. He also suggests that the undue focus on this type of metabolic adaptation is better attributed to metabolic adaptations that occur in response to elevated cortisol levels (though he doesn't refer to these adaptations as "metabolic adaptations" but rather describes them as physiological changes that can affect metabolism, which to me, seems like semantics). I don't disagree.
2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I'll give you credit, you can talk a good game, but you still don't understand metabolic adaptation.
Kudos to you for stringing words together well.
You're right! I don't fully understand metabolic adaptation. I'm not sure there is anyone who does. There are people who make a living studying metabolic adaptation (or try to), and I suspect that such researchers are likely better informed on the topic than either of us (unless you are yourself such a person, which is indeed possible).
That being said, I am not completely ignorant on the subject and my ability to "talk a good game" isn't just about stringing words together well. Still, I thank you for the Kudos.
I would contend that given that our DNA contains all of the instructions for our bodily construction and operation, epigenetics (the process by which the expression and operation of different genes are changed without actually changing the DNA itself) is largely responsible for any metabolic adaptations people experience. Since not everyone shares 100% of the same DNA and epigentics cannot turn on/off genes that aren't present in an individual, not everyone is going to experience exactly the same epigentic changes in response to their environments/behaviors.
Epigenetic changes occur on the outside of the gene, mainly through a process called methylation. In methylation, clusters of atoms, called methyl groups, attach to the outside of a gene making it more or less able to receive and respond to biochemical signals from the body (kind of like a dimmer switch on the expression of a given gene).
Nutritional deficiencies, caloric surplus/deficit, exercise, etc can all induce changes in the methylation patterns in our genes.
This Swedish study (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308802037_The_Impact_of_Endurance_Training_on_Human_Skeletal_Muscle_Memory_Global_Isoform_Expression_and_Novel_Transcripts) identified 3404 gene isoforms that undergo epigenetic changes during the course of 3 months of training, mostly associated with oxidative ATP production (i.e. conversion of chemical energy into one of the forms usable by human cells; i.e. related to metabolism and metabolic rate).
This meta-analysis of a number of studies (http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/03/30/bjsports-2014-094073.short) shows that exercise-associated DNA methylation is even more pronounced in older individuals (although in their case the increased epigentic variation is associated with activating cancer suppressing genes rather than those associated with metabolism).
This study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26977389), while not overly useful in prescribing human diets (as it is a rat study), does show that dietary composition can cause epigenetic changes that affect both the metabolism of the rats being fed (in this case a high fat diet) and their offspring (that's right, epigenetic markers can be inherited).
Here is a study (http://www.fasebj.org/content/25/4/1378.short) linking genetic and epigenetic differences in overweight individuals maintaining 8 weeks of caloric restriction to differences in weight loss outcomes (i.e. differences in metabolic rates beyond those expected by physiological difference between participants).
Here is a study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18809715) that found just a 6 hour period of elevated blood-glucose was enough to induce long lasting epigentic changes. Granted, it would be highly unlikely to experience elevated blood-glucose for that long with normal eating, but it DOES show that epigenetic changes and the beginnings of metabolic adaptations can happen very quickly.
I agree that metabolic adaptation is likely never the lone contributing factor in unsuccessful attempts at weight loss, and I agree that the role of metabolic adaptation is often exaggerated and incorrectly attributed to simply number of calories. Epigenetic changes can be induced by all kinds of things. Some are related to metabolism, some are not, some changes are made quickly (relatively) in response to the triggering stimuli, some require longer periods of sustained or repeated exposure to triggering stimuli to be induced.
Because there are so many factors that can affect epigenetics, it can be difficult to determine causes for individual changes (which is part of why the Swedish study I referenced had its participants exercise only one side of their body in hopes that localized epigentic changes would allow them to isolate those attributable specifically to the exercise).
Compared to what it is possible to know about metabolic adaptation, I admit that I know almost nothing, but given the research and scientific literature I have seen, I have every reason to believe that metabolic changes can and do occur surprisingly quickly, that chronic patterns are likely to increase the extent of such changes, and that there is at very least the potential for a temporary increase in food consumption (or a more permanent smaller increase in food consumption) to improve one's overall ability to lose weight (whether the mechanism involved be related to a reduction/correction in some nutritional deficiency, a reduced negative impact on metabolic hormones, the triggering of epigenetic changes related to metabolic rate, a reduction in perceived stress, some combination thereof, or something else entirely).
I am always happy to read more and become better informed, and I am not opposed to considering research that refutes anything I have said. I have, as per your suggestion, read much of the literature on metabolic adaptation put out by Lyle McDonald (and in some cases re-read as not everything of his I came across was new to me). Perhaps I missed something, but I didn't find anything in what I found of his writings that is inconsistent with what I have written here. He warns against trying to pin failure to lose weigh solely on metabolic adaptation related to caloric restriction when more often than not there are highly inaccurate assumptions being made about both caloric intake and caloric expenditure. He also suggests that the undue focus on this type of metabolic adaptation is better attributed to metabolic adaptations that occur in response to elevated cortisol levels (though he doesn't refer to these adaptations as "metabolic adaptations" but rather describes them as physiological changes that can affect metabolism, which to me, seems like semantics). I don't disagree.
That epigenetic stuff is cool, thanks for posting it. I speak plainly but understand more than my brief answers might lead one to believe. I'm often pressed for time when posting here
Even though we disagree on some things, we do agree that the OP should be eating more and moving more to offset any problems she might be encountering due to problems with cortisol and any other hormones.
I think that's a good place to leave our discussion because frankly, I don't know what else to say to the OP at this point.1 -
rileysowner wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »OP, sorry but what you say is simply not possible. You might as well claim you are flying. You do not maintain this kind of weight with what you eat, and fine tuning 3 grams here and 4 grams there will change nothing. And there is no medical condition affecting metabolism that can make you maintain this weight with these calories, not even if you are in a coma. So, the only reasonable conclusion, and I am not intending to offend, is you are either consciously or subconsciously, lying. If you are really lying, as in eating 3000 calories and claiming otherwise and knowing you are lying, I cannot see the purpose, so I am guessing this is not so. So, for whatever reason, you are somehow lying to yourself. You need more than 2000 calories to maintain this weight, and saying this is not what you are eating simply defies science and logic. So, maybe you are snacking in between and prefer to ignore it, maybe you are using a food scale that is not measuring what you think it does (i.e. mixing lbs with kilos), you are reading completely wrong data (e.g. confusing the serving calories with the 100 gram calories on packages) etc.
The only alternative would be something very wrong with your body, like massive water retention or a huge tumor etc, but again I am pretty sure you would have noticed.
Cortisol? How does cortisol factor in to CO? Specifically, how does cortisol factor into OP's CO? OP works in a science lab; to suggest she can't tell the difference between the words "pounds" and "kilos" is, quite frankly, more farfetched than the idea that she may actually be an outlier.
Except, there are no outliers, not at this scale. If what a person claims defies the laws of physics, this claim is false. Either intentionally or unintentionally. Simple as that. Laws of thermodynamics apply to all of us. Had the post said "I have no energy, can no longer force myself to leave the house, I am dropping asleep mid-sentence" or something similar, then things might have been different. But the claim is "I manage to work, exercise, live a normal life and maintain 230 lbs on about 1000 calories per day". Which is not possible, as it goes against physics, sorry.
I am guessing your claim that there are no outliers at this scale is simply wrong. It would be extremely rare, and the person who worked through the numbers made that clear. It is far more likely it is something else. I am going to give the OP the benefit of the doubt that she weighs everything excepting those things she admits to not weighing as I have often done the same thing, weigh my portion and then figure out what that equates to in terms of the volume measure that has the correct information in the database so that the calories are correct. It has often lead to some odd entries, but it worked fine to get the calories correct. It was just an extra step. Now I either correct an entry by putting in grams (if they are non verified) or make my own as it is far easier entering the grams than figuring out the conversion. I am guessing it is a combination of the OP being a slight outlier make the required calories lower (possibly due to medical issues) along with logging errors or something similar. At this point the OP is going to start weighing those thing that were not being weighed, so that will cut back on logging errors. Also the OP will be checking database entries to personally verify them, which will also help. Hopefully that will clear things up, but for now, giving the OP the benefit of the doubt that what we have been told is true, this is a confusing situation.
I am 100% sure that there is nothing to guess. Unless a person has found a way to metabolise something humans cannot burn, like e.g. cellulose like a cow would, or can get energy from water, some other material that we assume has zero calories when consumed by humans, this person either will lose weight, or end up catatonic or both when eating way below maintenance. OP is claiming to eat less than half her maintenance calories, claims to have been at this for weeks, and also claims that not only no weight loss happens, but life continues with normal activities. If this was possible, and humans could get energy from some alternative source without even noticing, this would have been noticed a long time ago as it would solve world hunger. And rewrite all biology textbooks
My guess between a person miscalculating/omitting data/lying and science as the world knows it being wrong without anyone noticing so far, is that the second scenario is more probable...
1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I'll give you credit, you can talk a good game, but you still don't understand metabolic adaptation.
Kudos to you for stringing words together well.
You're right! I don't fully understand metabolic adaptation. I'm not sure there is anyone who does. There are people who make a living studying metabolic adaptation (or try to), and I suspect that such researchers are likely better informed on the topic than either of us (unless you are yourself such a person, which is indeed possible).
That being said, I am not completely ignorant on the subject and my ability to "talk a good game" isn't just about stringing words together well. Still, I thank you for the Kudos.
I would contend that given that our DNA contains all of the instructions for our bodily construction and operation, epigenetics (the process by which the expression and operation of different genes are changed without actually changing the DNA itself) is largely responsible for any metabolic adaptations people experience. Since not everyone shares 100% of the same DNA and epigentics cannot turn on/off genes that aren't present in an individual, not everyone is going to experience exactly the same epigentic changes in response to their environments/behaviors.
Epigenetic changes occur on the outside of the gene, mainly through a process called methylation. In methylation, clusters of atoms, called methyl groups, attach to the outside of a gene making it more or less able to receive and respond to biochemical signals from the body (kind of like a dimmer switch on the expression of a given gene).
Nutritional deficiencies, caloric surplus/deficit, exercise, etc can all induce changes in the methylation patterns in our genes.
This Swedish study (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308802037_The_Impact_of_Endurance_Training_on_Human_Skeletal_Muscle_Memory_Global_Isoform_Expression_and_Novel_Transcripts) identified 3404 gene isoforms that undergo epigenetic changes during the course of 3 months of training, mostly associated with oxidative ATP production (i.e. conversion of chemical energy into one of the forms usable by human cells; i.e. related to metabolism and metabolic rate).
This meta-analysis of a number of studies (http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2015/03/30/bjsports-2014-094073.short) shows that exercise-associated DNA methylation is even more pronounced in older individuals (although in their case the increased epigentic variation is associated with activating cancer suppressing genes rather than those associated with metabolism).
This study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26977389), while not overly useful in prescribing human diets (as it is a rat study), does show that dietary composition can cause epigenetic changes that affect both the metabolism of the rats being fed (in this case a high fat diet) and their offspring (that's right, epigenetic markers can be inherited).
Here is a study (http://www.fasebj.org/content/25/4/1378.short) linking genetic and epigenetic differences in overweight individuals maintaining 8 weeks of caloric restriction to differences in weight loss outcomes (i.e. differences in metabolic rates beyond those expected by physiological difference between participants).
Here is a study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18809715) that found just a 6 hour period of elevated blood-glucose was enough to induce long lasting epigentic changes. Granted, it would be highly unlikely to experience elevated blood-glucose for that long with normal eating, but it DOES show that epigenetic changes and the beginnings of metabolic adaptations can happen very quickly.
I agree that metabolic adaptation is likely never the lone contributing factor in unsuccessful attempts at weight loss, and I agree that the role of metabolic adaptation is often exaggerated and incorrectly attributed to simply number of calories. Epigenetic changes can be induced by all kinds of things. Some are related to metabolism, some are not, some changes are made quickly (relatively) in response to the triggering stimuli, some require longer periods of sustained or repeated exposure to triggering stimuli to be induced.
Because there are so many factors that can affect epigenetics, it can be difficult to determine causes for individual changes (which is part of why the Swedish study I referenced had its participants exercise only one side of their body in hopes that localized epigentic changes would allow them to isolate those attributable specifically to the exercise).
Compared to what it is possible to know about metabolic adaptation, I admit that I know almost nothing, but given the research and scientific literature I have seen, I have every reason to believe that metabolic changes can and do occur surprisingly quickly, that chronic patterns are likely to increase the extent of such changes, and that there is at very least the potential for a temporary increase in food consumption (or a more permanent smaller increase in food consumption) to improve one's overall ability to lose weight (whether the mechanism involved be related to a reduction/correction in some nutritional deficiency, a reduced negative impact on metabolic hormones, the triggering of epigenetic changes related to metabolic rate, a reduction in perceived stress, some combination thereof, or something else entirely).
I am always happy to read more and become better informed, and I am not opposed to considering research that refutes anything I have said. I have, as per your suggestion, read much of the literature on metabolic adaptation put out by Lyle McDonald (and in some cases re-read as not everything of his I came across was new to me). Perhaps I missed something, but I didn't find anything in what I found of his writings that is inconsistent with what I have written here. He warns against trying to pin failure to lose weigh solely on metabolic adaptation related to caloric restriction when more often than not there are highly inaccurate assumptions being made about both caloric intake and caloric expenditure. He also suggests that the undue focus on this type of metabolic adaptation is better attributed to metabolic adaptations that occur in response to elevated cortisol levels (though he doesn't refer to these adaptations as "metabolic adaptations" but rather describes them as physiological changes that can affect metabolism, which to me, seems like semantics). I don't disagree.
Thank you!
0 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »Umm, no. You still need to weigh and count calories to accurately implement CICO. It doesn't matter how your macros are balanced or what types of food you eat. No weighing or calorie counting and it's all just guessing and keeping your fingers crossed that your guess was good enough. Unnecessary stress IMO.
I haven't weighed or counted calories. I just eat LCHF and listen to my body. When I'm full I don't eat anymore. If I'm not full I add a little more protein and fat to my diet. Pretty simple. Works well for me, I'm down 16kg from the beginning of the year and my health markers are better than pre LCHF.
As far as I know, people pre: 1950's - 60's didn't weigh food and count calories. They just ate real, unprocessed food. That is basically what I'm suggesting.
Just because my way of eating is different to yours doesn't make it right or wrong. It could be what the OP needs or maybe not? Not for me to decide or others.
0 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »Umm, no. You still need to weigh and count calories to accurately implement CICO. It doesn't matter how your macros are balanced or what types of food you eat. No weighing or calorie counting and it's all just guessing and keeping your fingers crossed that your guess was good enough. Unnecessary stress IMO.
I haven't weighed or counted calories. I just eat LCHF and listen to my body. When I'm full I don't eat anymore. If I'm not full I add a little more protein and fat to my diet. Pretty simple. Works well for me, I'm down 16kg from the beginning of the year and my health markers are better than pre LCHF.
As far as I know, people pre: 1950's - 60's didn't weigh food and count calories. They just ate real, unprocessed food. That is basically what I'm suggesting.
Just because my way of eating is different to yours doesn't make it right or wrong. It could be what the OP needs or maybe not? Not for me to decide or others.
I'm down 53.5kg from last July weighing and counting.
Food available pre 1950's - 60's was fairly different that what we have today. The "quick and easy" calorie dense convenience foods we have today were almost no where to be found. So you'd have to eat only foods available back then to have a fair comparison to someone doing that today.
I'm not saying your method is wrong, I'm saying that there is no reason to have the added stress of "guessing" your foods are the appropriate calorie count, especially if you don't have much to lose and therefore have a much smaller margin of error on your calorie deficit.1 -
Great posts. Came across an interesting and perhaps very insightful article published by New York Times -
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html
-1 -
Great posts. Came across an interesting and perhaps very insightful article published by New York Times -
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.htmlGreat posts. Came across an interesting and perhaps very insightful article published by New York Times -
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html
I read it, and it was interesting.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions