Trendweight Creeping Gain
Replies
-
I agree with the diet break.
I set the activity settings lower thinking "if I make a mistake in my logging somewhere the lower setting would register a lower burn to accommodate" and I see that backfired too.
No offense taken at all @PAV8888
4 -
Feel free to come join us in the refeed/diet break thread, Newheavensearth. There's lots of science, but also lots of personal anecdotes and updating from those doing diet breaks and refeeds: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks#latest 3
-
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Feel free to come join us in the refeed/diet break thread, Newheavensearth. There's lots of science, but also lots of personal anecdotes and updating from those doing diet breaks and refeeds: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks#latest
Thanks I'm reading along!4 -
Why not eat 150 fewer calories a day than you currently think you should, and see if it balances out?0
-
scarlett_k wrote: »Why not eat 150 fewer calories a day than you currently think you should, and see if it balances out?
Because that's exactly what @PAV8888 described as "beating head against the wall".6 -
newheavensearth wrote: »I agree with the diet break.
I set the activity settings lower thinking "if I make a mistake in my logging somewhere the lower setting would register a lower burn to accommodate" and I see that backfired too.
No offense taken at all @PAV8888
Actually, if you have your Fitbit synced with MFP it makes allowances for that. It only becomes an issue if say, you select very active, are actually not that active and don't enable negative adjustments. If you're more active than your activity setting you will get all calories over and above that setting added.
Just a little point to clarify how the two interact with each other.1 -
I have my settings at sedentary because I'm a desk worker and I have negative adjustments enabled.
And I'm definitely not looking into eating at 1200 calories! 1300 is the absolute lowest!0 -
At the end of the day, basically no matter what setting you pick, as long as you have negative enabled (and MFP won't let it adjust below 1200 though as you say, ain't no way i'm eating that) then the total calories at the end of the day will be the same. So sedentary may give you 800 calories and very active may give you 0 adjustment (numbers plucked at random!) but they work out to the same total.0
-
I looked around for twenty minutes last night but i could find no controlled study on diet breaks. The closest I have seen to actual science is a very small study on calorie shifting diets that only tracked for a short period of time, where any additional weight loss could have easily been explained by the placement of the days where less food was consumed. Without a controlled experiment to study the long term effect of a diet method that includes controlled periods of carbohydrate overloading, the concept is by definition pseudoscience. Now, pseudoscience doesn't necessarily mean wrong, it just indicates that the matter is not actually well studied via the scientific method.
That being said, five hours of eating noodle soup, rice, bread, and crackers once every other week won't exactly hurt you or your diet. In fact, it should make your diet easier to stick to. I've done this a few times myself and I believe it is contributing to my success.6 -
-
I looked around for twenty minutes last night but i could find no controlled study on diet breaks. The closest I have seen to actual science is a very small study on calorie shifting diets that only tracked for a short period of time, where any additional weight loss could have easily been explained by the placement of the days where less food was consumed. Without a controlled experiment to study the long term effect of a diet method that includes controlled periods of carbohydrate overloading, the concept is by definition pseudoscience. Now, pseudoscience doesn't necessarily mean wrong, it just indicates that the matter is not actually well studied via the scientific method.
That being said, five hours of eating noodle soup, rice, bread, and crackers once every other week won't exactly hurt you or your diet. In fact, it should make your diet easier to stick to. I've done this a few times myself and I believe it is contributing to my success.
5 hours apparently does nothing for your hormones. If you listen to the video on the refeed/diet break thread, at least 2 days is required.5 -
This is great info, timely for my own situation, thanks!0
-
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »I looked around for twenty minutes last night but i could find no controlled study on diet breaks. The closest I have seen to actual science is a very small study on calorie shifting diets that only tracked for a short period of time, where any additional weight loss could have easily been explained by the placement of the days where less food was consumed. Without a controlled experiment to study the long term effect of a diet method that includes controlled periods of carbohydrate overloading, the concept is by definition pseudoscience. Now, pseudoscience doesn't necessarily mean wrong, it just indicates that the matter is not actually well studied via the scientific method.
That being said, five hours of eating noodle soup, rice, bread, and crackers once every other week won't exactly hurt you or your diet. In fact, it should make your diet easier to stick to. I've done this a few times myself and I believe it is contributing to my success.
5 hours apparently does nothing for your hormones. If you listen to the video on the refeed/diet break thread, at least 2 days is required.
It's also not a carb free for all either. The "trendy" version of refeeds isn't used correctly by most people who do indeed just have a 5 hours free for all. If done correctly as advised by the total charlatan Lyle McDonald then you do it for a minimum of 2 days. You still log and track, your focus is on increasing calorie intake through carbs.6 -
I hate predictive text.
@anubis609
To add further, there is research regarding refeeds and diet breaks, and it's cited by Lyle in the podcasts.
Additionally, there is no overloading. The diet break is simply eating at maintenance, and the assumption is that a person who has been dieting will have had their fat and protein dialed in to optimum amounts and will therefor increase carbs when increasing their calories to maintenance.
For a refeed, if a dieter has been eating low carb high fat, it's preferential for them to lower their fat and increase carbs to bring their T3 and leptin levels back into normal range since leptin in particular is carb sensitive.
I'm trying to say it depends on your starting macro mix whether or not this carb-ification is a huge change for you or not. I already eat a lot of carbs and a low fat diet, so just adding carbs to my already low fat diet to get to maintenance level is enough for a refeed. Someone with a different macro mix will have to alter the macros to get the desired results from a refeed to get the restorative affects.
I would suggest skeptics read the refeeds and diet breaks thread.
6 -
[quote="VintageFeline;c-40777736
It's also not a carb free for all either. The "trendy" version of refeeds isn't used correctly by most people who do indeed just have a 5 hours free for all. If done correctly as advised by the total charlatan Lyle McDonald then you do it for a minimum of 2 days. You still log and track, your focus is on increasing calorie intake through carbs.[/quote]
Lyle a charlatan? (a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill; a fraud.
synonyms: quack, sham, fraud, fake, impostor, hoaxer, cheat, deceiver, double-dealer, swindler, fraudster, mountebank)
Is this what you meant to say?
1 -
cparsons_60 wrote: »[quote="VintageFeline;c-40777736
It's also not a carb free for all either. The "trendy" version of refeeds isn't used correctly by most people who do indeed just have a 5 hours free for all. If done correctly as advised by the total charlatan Lyle McDonald then you do it for a minimum of 2 days. You still log and track, your focus is on increasing calorie intake through carbs.
Lyle a charlatan? (a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill; a fraud.
synonyms: quack, sham, fraud, fake, impostor, hoaxer, cheat, deceiver, double-dealer, swindler, fraudster, mountebank)
Is this what you meant to say?
[/quote]
I'm not Vintage Feline, but feel compelled to clear this up quickly. It's a tongue in cheek reference to something that happened on another thread.
5 -
0
-
Yep what she said. Tongue in cheek. Lyle is in fact brilliant.8
-
newheavensearth wrote: »OP, you might want to take a look at the "Of Refeeds and Diet Breaks" thread. This article was posted within (so much good stuff in that thread) and reading your post made me think of it. https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/why-big-caloric-deficits-and-lots-of-activity-can-hurt-fat-loss.html/
I just skimmed this and yes this is me.
I was exercising so much to try to offset the stress in my life instead of binging. And lose weight of course. Looks like it backfired. 
Please don’t be hard on yourself, it’s been me too—that’s why it resonated so much. Maybe find some other (less active) coping strategies to help with the stress?2 -
I looked around for twenty minutes last night but i could find no controlled study on diet breaks. The closest I have seen to actual science is a very small study on calorie shifting diets that only tracked for a short period of time, where any additional weight loss could have easily been explained by the placement of the days where less food was consumed. Without a controlled experiment to study the long term effect of a diet method that includes controlled periods of carbohydrate overloading, the concept is by definition pseudoscience. Now, pseudoscience doesn't necessarily mean wrong, it just indicates that the matter is not actually well studied via the scientific method.
That being said, five hours of eating noodle soup, rice, bread, and crackers once every other week won't exactly hurt you or your diet. In fact, it should make your diet easier to stick to. I've done this a few times myself and I believe it is contributing to my success.
Pseudoscience: a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.
Twenty minutes? Look harder. Listen to the podcast on refeeds. Backed by science.
And have you read this? http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ijo2017206a.html?foxtrotcallback=true? 28 or 42 weeks for trial depending on group, with a six month follow up. I'm sure you'll find fault with it though.7 -
newheavensearth wrote: »Great answers! I have been suspicious of my Fit bit recently. Sometimes it gives me a 2500 daily expenditure at the end of the day and I'm just like huh? So definitely will factor in less exercise calorie usage.
Fitbit basically gives your daily calorie expenditure based on your activity for the last 24-48hrs.. So one day you burn 800-1000 cals and next day you burn only 400, your calorie expenditure will remain same as the day you did 800-1000 calorie burn. Bottom line, watch out your calorie intake - I am 5'3 and my activity level is "active" ( about 10000+ steps a day . So i take my calorie intake depending on my activity level. I don't go by fitbit or MF even though it gives me anywhere between 1290-1300 cals per day.. Regardless, I try to have a minimum of 300-500 calorie deficit because I am looking forward to atleast 1 pound loss per week. So I am helping myself with more fiber, water etc.. Again, if you burn more, you have more calories to save but for that we have to feed ourselves less BUT high fiber food. Just because I burn 300 calories I wouldn't eat them up all. It's like I deposit in savings and use very minimum.1 -
That study had less than 20 individuals completing the study in either group. They're not really achieving a minimal statistical significance of p=0.05. Mind you I'm not saying that it is invalid (it is interesting and suggests that further study is needed), rather, what is invalid is trying to cite this study to say that you're not talking pseudoscience.Nony_Mouse wrote: »I looked around for twenty minutes last night but i could find no controlled study on diet breaks. The closest I have seen to actual science is a very small study on calorie shifting diets that only tracked for a short period of time, where any additional weight loss could have easily been explained by the placement of the days where less food was consumed. Without a controlled experiment to study the long term effect of a diet method that includes controlled periods of carbohydrate overloading, the concept is by definition pseudoscience. Now, pseudoscience doesn't necessarily mean wrong, it just indicates that the matter is not actually well studied via the scientific method.
That being said, five hours of eating noodle soup, rice, bread, and crackers once every other week won't exactly hurt you or your diet. In fact, it should make your diet easier to stick to. I've done this a few times myself and I believe it is contributing to my success.
Pseudoscience: a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.
Twenty minutes? Look harder. Listen to the podcast on refeeds. Backed by science.
And have you read this? http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ijo2017206a.html?foxtrotcallback=true? 28 or 42 weeks for trial depending on group, with a six month follow up. I'm sure you'll find fault with it though.
Finally intermittant energy restriction is a method that is not the one you are discussing. What I am saying is that you are mistaking somewhat similar or related studies for proof of your theory. That is pseudoscience because the theory presented by Lyle McDonald has, as far as I can tell and from what I've seen you try to cite - untested.
It is literally not backed by science. It's an interesting theory with some of its principle concepts demonstrated, but to call it anything more than a theory or imply that an experiment has been conducted to verify its long term efficacy is untrue/mistaken and therefore pseudoscience.3 -
So here's what I'm looking for before I sing the gospel of Lyle as science: a well controlled study of at least 300 individuals with at least 250 staying observably compliant with the study protocols, demonstrating statistically significantly more fat or weight loss over a period of at least two years greater in the McDonald protocol vs a CCR protocol (classic calorie restriction).
And I think this is what everyone that believes in it should ask for/work toward as well.
Lacking that, I cannot say that the McDonald protocol is better than CCR according to science (that does not yet exist). So I'm asking for help to see if any such study has been done.3 -
So here's what I'm looking for before I sing the gospel of Lyle as science: a well controlled study of at least 300 individuals with at least 250 staying observably compliant with the study protocols, demonstrating statistically significantly more fat or weight loss over a period of at least two years greater in the McDonald protocol vs a CCR protocol (classic calorie restriction).
And I think this is what everyone that believes in it should ask for/work toward as well.
Lacking that, I cannot say that the McDonald protocol is better than CCR according to science (that does not yet exist). So I'm asking for help to see if any such study has been done.
Do you have any idea of how much a study like that would cost? Obviously not.4 -
A study like could be done at a cost of about USD 90k, although you would likely have to do this in Asia.Nony_Mouse wrote: »Do you have any idea of how much a study like that would cost? Obviously not.
If you attract the interest of lead scientists say, at the National Institutes of Health with the clear scientific strengths of your method, it's very likely they'll allocate public money to study it.
Like I said, I found Lyle's theories to be fascinating and I've been modifying my diet personally to see if I can change the way I feel by juggling the balance of my calories between the macronutrients (I had a 70% carbohydrate day yesterday while maintaining my calorie goal). I believe in about 50% of what he says (not implying disbelief in the other 50%) and I'm putting it personally to the test.
Unfortunately my responses to you have been off topic for the thread. I don't think that the concepts are dangerous and therefore I should hold my comments on the subject of Lyle.2 -
The problem with studies and calories and funding is that any meaningful study is going to be small sized because in order to be completely controlled, it's too expensive to monitor/control calorie/macronutrient/compliance for the participants.
As soon as you take away that control in order to widen the scope of the study, you have introduced confounding factors, thus calling into question any results such a study would yield.
Nutrition studies are limited by these variables. There are far too many dubious studies out there in the nutrition field as it is based on self-reported data. Another one wouldn't yield anything but a call for ... controlled research.6 -
weighmeless wrote: »newheavensearth wrote: »Great answers! I have been suspicious of my Fit bit recently. Sometimes it gives me a 2500 daily expenditure at the end of the day and I'm just like huh? So definitely will factor in less exercise calorie usage.
Fitbit basically gives your daily calorie expenditure based on your activity for the last 24-48hrs.. So one day you burn 800-1000 cals and next day you burn only 400, your calorie expenditure will remain same as the day you did 800-1000 calorie burn. Bottom line, watch out your calorie intake - I am 5'3 and my activity level is "active" ( about 10000+ steps a day . So i take my calorie intake depending on my activity level. I don't go by fitbit or MF even though it gives me anywhere between 1290-1300 cals per day.. Regardless, I try to have a minimum of 300-500 calorie deficit because I am looking forward to atleast 1 pound loss per week. So I am helping myself with more fiber, water etc.. Again, if you burn more, you have more calories to save but for that we have to feed ourselves less BUT high fiber food. Just because I burn 300 calories I wouldn't eat them up all. It's like I deposit in savings and use very minimum.
2 day averaging is NOT how Fitbit works. The day ends at midnight.
Absolutely does NOT do like you suggested.
Perhaps you have observed something that makes you assume it works that way, but that would be because of not knowing what they are doing.1 -
I would love to see a study that is considered acceptable that has 300 participants and any kind of decent controls on it.
I've been reviewing several I had open, and several of my favorites - would love to know what I'm missing with that kind of participation levels.5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions