Weight loss woo keeps getting worse.
Options
Replies
-
stanmann571 wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
Is this what that "refeeds and diet breaks" post was about?
In part but more than just that. Go in a take a look. There is a wealth of info and links in that thread.
I know.... but it's also waaaay above my head for the most part. I haven't had a chance to watch the video but got the cliff notes from some of the early responses.
I'm really glad it cropped up, though. I think it addresses some of what I've been going through lately.
There's also the 16 page thread on starvation mode.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p10 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
Is this what that "refeeds and diet breaks" post was about?
In part but more than just that. Go in a take a look. There is a wealth of info and links in that thread.
I know.... but it's also waaaay above my head for the most part. I haven't had a chance to watch the video but got the cliff notes from some of the early responses.
I'm really glad it cropped up, though. I think it addresses some of what I've been going through lately.
There's also the 16 page thread on starvation mode.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1
Thanks for this. Reading it now.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
Is this what that "refeeds and diet breaks" post was about?
In part but more than just that. Go in a take a look. There is a wealth of info and links in that thread.
I know.... but it's also waaaay above my head for the most part. I haven't had a chance to watch the video but got the cliff notes from some of the early responses.
I'm really glad it cropped up, though. I think it addresses some of what I've been going through lately.
Yes, the very short answer is calorie deficit alters hormones that affect fat loss. This happens more dramatically for women. Taking a diet break and eating at maintenance every 6 to 8 weeks, for women, is beneficial to reset hormones and facilitate continued fat loss and avoid stalls. Some will do 2 days per week at maintenance, refeeds, and find it helpful. There are studies and articles that support both.4 -
stanmann571 wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
Is this what that "refeeds and diet breaks" post was about?
In part but more than just that. Go in a take a look. There is a wealth of info and links in that thread.
I know.... but it's also waaaay above my head for the most part. I haven't had a chance to watch the video but got the cliff notes from some of the early responses.
I'm really glad it cropped up, though. I think it addresses some of what I've been going through lately.
Yes, the very short answer is calorie deficit alters hormones that affect fat loss. This happens more dramatically for women. Taking a diet break and eating at maintenance every 6 to 8 weeks, for women, is beneficial to reset hormones and facilitate continued fat loss and avoid stalls. Some will do 2 days per week at maintenance, refeeds, and find it helpful. There are studies and articles that support both.
I do at least 2 days a week refeed at a deficit and 4-8 month bulk cycles. Next time I will do the diet break during my cut too.. nothing will stand in my way!
2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »ugofatc[i][/i]at wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
But "starvation mode" (as commonly defined here) is pure nonsense, completely false.
Adaptive thermogenesis, OTOH, while a real effect, is not universal . . . and perhaps not permanent in all those affected.
Your two extremes of woo are not matching bookends.2 -
There are a lot of weird things in the world that are completely out of our control, like some of the peculiar things others choose to believe. I don't lose any sleep over it, and I don't argue about it on the internet.0
-
stanmann571 wrote: »ugofatc[i][/i]at wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
But "starvation mode" (as commonly defined here) is pure nonsense, completely false.
Adaptive thermogenesis, OTOH, while a real effect, is not universal . . . and perhaps not permanent in all those affected.
Your two extremes of woo are not matching bookends.
AT doesn't have to be permanent for most folks. That is what is helpful about refeeds and diet breaks. It only becomes permanent when someone stay is too much of deficit for far too long. Then some of the effects can be permanent, although can be lessened by eating a maintenance for a period.0 -
I don't know if the adaptive thermogenesis stuff falls into the "woo" category but it certainly falls into "let me spend a ton of time and energy overfocusing on something that likely has absolutely nothing to do with my actual ability to lose weight" category. People love to focus on situational details and use them as blame/excuses rather than just doing something constructive like use that energy to meal plan or go for a walk.
Personally I wasted time in the good old fashioned way. Forum posting.18 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I don't know if the adaptive thermogenesis stuff falls into the "woo" category but it certainly falls into "let me spend a ton of time and energy overfocusing on something that likely has absolutely nothing to do with my actual ability to lose weight" category. People love to focus on situational details and use them as blame/excuses rather than just doing something constructive like use that energy to meal plan or go for a walk.
Personally I wasted time in the good old fashioned way. Forum posting.
I don't know.... there's some merit to it when you have a LOT of weight to lose, and taking the time and effort to focus on a diet break could really be called for. I think I'm coming up to something like that. About to hit 20% of SW lost, have been at a deficit for almost 9 months, and have at least another 20% to go. If anything, the psychological effect of having a reason to maintain for a bit rather than "giving up" makes all the difference in the world.4 -
stanmann571 wrote: »ugofatc[i][/i]at wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
But "starvation mode" (as commonly defined here) is pure nonsense, completely false.
Adaptive thermogenesis, OTOH, while a real effect, is not universal . . . and perhaps not permanent in all those affected.
Your two extremes of woo are not matching bookends.
AT doesn't have to be permanent for most folks. That is what is helpful about refeeds and diet breaks. It only becomes permanent when someone stay is too much of deficit for far too long. Then some of the effects can be permanent, although can be lessened by eating a maintenance for a period.
Personally, I suspect AT may not be universal even without refeeds and diet breaks, given some of the research I've seen. And anecdotally, some seem to achieve remediation of AT via "reverse dieting" strategies. I don't know of research to support the latter contention, though I think I've seen something somewhere suggesting AT for some may "heal" with time (quite a lot of time).
Very long term research is not common, and I think these issues might require it, to reach decent conclusions.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I don't know if the adaptive thermogenesis stuff falls into the "woo" category but it certainly falls into "let me spend a ton of time and energy overfocusing on something that likely has absolutely nothing to do with my actual ability to lose weight" category. People love to focus on situational details and use them as blame/excuses rather than just doing something constructive like use that energy to meal plan or go for a walk.
Personally I wasted time in the good old fashioned way. Forum posting.
I don't know.... there's some merit to it when you have a LOT of weight to lose, and taking the time and effort to focus on a diet break could really be called for. I think I'm coming up to something like that. About to hit 20% of SW lost, have been at a deficit for almost 9 months, and have at least another 20% to go. If anything, the psychological effect of having a reason to maintain for a bit rather than "giving up" makes all the difference in the world.
Which is why I would hesitate to call it "woo". I'm not saying there isn't a case where it is relevant I'm just mentioning that lots of times in these forums it comes up it is someone using it as a reason why "a calorie isn't a calorie" and then using that as a reason not to bother counting calories. That or they are trying to lose weight but haven't lost a pound in months and turn to their body being in "starvation mode" or some other jargony version of adaptive thermogenesis that just doesn't apply. For most it seems it just becomes an excuse, one that just happens to sound sciency.4 -
stanmann571 wrote: »ugofatc[i][/i]at wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
But "starvation mode" (as commonly defined here) is pure nonsense, completely false.
Adaptive thermogenesis, OTOH, while a real effect, is not universal . . . and perhaps not permanent in all those affected.
Your two extremes of woo are not matching bookends.
AT doesn't have to be permanent for most folks. That is what is helpful about refeeds and diet breaks. It only becomes permanent when someone stay is too much of deficit for far too long. Then some of the effects can be permanent, although can be lessened by eating a maintenance for a period.
Personally, I suspect AT may not be universal even without refeeds and diet breaks, given some of the research I've seen. And anecdotally, some seem to achieve remediation of AT via "reverse dieting" strategies. I don't know of research to support the latter contention, though I think I've seen something somewhere suggesting AT for some may "heal" with time (quite a lot of time).
Very long term research is not common, and I think these issues might require it, to reach decent conclusions.
This post suggested 6 months - 7 years for it to "heal", if I'm remembering correctly: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1
1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I don't know if the adaptive thermogenesis stuff falls into the "woo" category but it certainly falls into "let me spend a ton of time and energy overfocusing on something that likely has absolutely nothing to do with my actual ability to lose weight" category. People love to focus on situational details and use them as blame/excuses rather than just doing something constructive like use that energy to meal plan or go for a walk.
Personally I wasted time in the good old fashioned way. Forum posting.
I don't know.... there's some merit to it when you have a LOT of weight to lose, and taking the time and effort to focus on a diet break could really be called for. I think I'm coming up to something like that. About to hit 20% of SW lost, have been at a deficit for almost 9 months, and have at least another 20% to go. If anything, the psychological effect of having a reason to maintain for a bit rather than "giving up" makes all the difference in the world.
Which is why I would hesitate to call it "woo". I'm not saying there isn't a case where it is relevant I'm just mentioning that lots of times in these forums it comes up it is someone using it as a reason why "a calorie isn't a calorie" and then using that as a reason not to bother counting calories. That or they are trying to lose weight but haven't lost a pound in months and turn to their body being in "starvation mode" or some other jargony version of adaptive thermogenesis that just doesn't apply. For most it seems it just becomes an excuse, one that just happens to sound sciency.
I agree with you on that. Just excited that I learned something new today!1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »ugofatc[i][/i]at wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
But "starvation mode" (as commonly defined here) is pure nonsense, completely false.
Adaptive thermogenesis, OTOH, while a real effect, is not universal . . . and perhaps not permanent in all those affected.
Your two extremes of woo are not matching bookends.
AT doesn't have to be permanent for most folks. That is what is helpful about refeeds and diet breaks. It only becomes permanent when someone stay is too much of deficit for far too long. Then some of the effects can be permanent, although can be lessened by eating a maintenance for a period.
Personally, I suspect AT may not be universal even without refeeds and diet breaks, given some of the research I've seen. And anecdotally, some seem to achieve remediation of AT via "reverse dieting" strategies. I don't know of research to support the latter contention, though I think I've seen something somewhere suggesting AT for some may "heal" with time (quite a lot of time).
Very long term research is not common, and I think these issues might require it, to reach decent conclusions.
Yes, reverse dieting can help for those affected by AT. I think it is pretty universal that our system will down-regulate in prolonged deficit. Have you seen research that says not in all cases? If so, I'd be interested in taking a look.0 -
I have a patient who came in here letting us know how she lost her weight by just cutting out anything but leafy greens, citrus fruits, and hot tea.
She tried to give me a print-out about it. I wish I'd taken it.2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »I don't know if the adaptive thermogenesis stuff falls into the "woo" category but it certainly falls into "let me spend a ton of time and energy overfocusing on something that likely has absolutely nothing to do with my actual ability to lose weight" category. People love to focus on situational details and use them as blame/excuses rather than just doing something constructive like use that energy to meal plan or go for a walk.
Personally I wasted time in the good old fashioned way. Forum posting.
I don't know.... there's some merit to it when you have a LOT of weight to lose, and taking the time and effort to focus on a diet break could really be called for. I think I'm coming up to something like that. About to hit 20% of SW lost, have been at a deficit for almost 9 months, and have at least another 20% to go. If anything, the psychological effect of having a reason to maintain for a bit rather than "giving up" makes all the difference in the world.
Which is why I would hesitate to call it "woo". I'm not saying there isn't a case where it is relevant I'm just mentioning that lots of times in these forums it comes up it is someone using it as a reason why "a calorie isn't a calorie" and then using that as a reason not to bother counting calories. That or they are trying to lose weight but haven't lost a pound in months and turn to their body being in "starvation mode" or some other jargony version of adaptive thermogenesis that just doesn't apply. For most it seems it just becomes an excuse, one that just happens to sound sciency.
I would generally agree with your observations. There is however a pretty good rationale for diet breaks and refeeds to keep the hormonal factors from working against folks and causing stalls or slowed fat loss. Have you had an opportunity to look at the thread I referenced above?1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »ugofatc[i][/i]at wrote: »The one I can't wrap my head around is "starvation mode". The only thing that will make you lose weight creating a calorie deficit, which is typically done by eating less. Yet somehow eating less will make you gain weight? I am dumbfounded how anyone can buy this logic.
I guess it is because people weigh themselves in the morning, eat healthy for 6 hours, weigh themselves, the scale goes up 2 pounds, so their body must be hoarding fat. It couldn't possibly be a full bladder or the fact they just ate, obviously it is fat.
There's bad woo on both sides of adaptive thermogenics.
On the one hand you have the above.
On the other you have the assertion that someone who has lost 200 lbs and now weights 187 lbs can and should maintain that weight with approximately the same calories as someone who hasn't lost 200 lbs.
Adaptive Thermogenics and metabolic damage are real things and can take months or years to recover.
But "starvation mode" (as commonly defined here) is pure nonsense, completely false.
Adaptive thermogenesis, OTOH, while a real effect, is not universal . . . and perhaps not permanent in all those affected.
Your two extremes of woo are not matching bookends.
AT doesn't have to be permanent for most folks. That is what is helpful about refeeds and diet breaks. It only becomes permanent when someone stay is too much of deficit for far too long. Then some of the effects can be permanent, although can be lessened by eating a maintenance for a period.
Personally, I suspect AT may not be universal even without refeeds and diet breaks, given some of the research I've seen. And anecdotally, some seem to achieve remediation of AT via "reverse dieting" strategies. I don't know of research to support the latter contention, though I think I've seen something somewhere suggesting AT for some may "heal" with time (quite a lot of time).
Very long term research is not common, and I think these issues might require it, to reach decent conclusions.
This post suggested 6 months - 7 years for it to "heal", if I'm remembering correctly: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1
In extreme cases.0 -
Don't click on those Pinterest things even to have a laugh, you'll just start getting more and more of them suggested to you. My Pinterest is a calm oasis of rude cross stitch and Gary Oldman and I like it that way.3
-
YepItsKriss wrote: »So this week I'm doing the intermittent keto - parsley diet for my blood type. Who's with me?
Oh I am totally in. I just had someone on my personal feed write about how sugar stops weight loss and something about plexus products? I don't know what those are but maybe we should add the 0 sugar otherwise we won't lose as much weight even with the parsley
I had a "friend" on here who started up with exactly that. I removed her and she has tried to add me again. I can't look at that stuff in my feed every day.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions