Is it possible my body doesn't want to lose more?
Replies
-
quiksylver296 wrote: »
well you have to eat only when you are HUNGRY...and most of us do not. in fact the book indicates we don't know what we feel most of the time...cuz WE ARE TOO BUSY STUFFING FOOD DOWN OUR THROATS..so the writer does have a point. if we only ate when we were hungry had emotional well being...exercised for health..then yes we would self regulate.
This would make sense if hunger indicated that we needed more calories, but it doesn't. Certain meals can be higher calorie but not as filling. For example, I can eat a donut and be hungry again pretty quickly but that doesn't mean I won't gain weight if I eat more food and wind up consuming more energy than I need.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »
well you have to eat only when you are HUNGRY...and most of us do not. in fact the book indicates we don't know what we feel most of the time...cuz WE ARE TOO BUSY STUFFING FOOD DOWN OUR THROATS..so the writer does have a point. if we only ate when we were hungry had emotional well being...exercised for health..then yes we would self regulate.
This would make sense if hunger indicated that we needed more calories, but it doesn't. Certain meals can be higher calorie but not as filling. For example, I can eat a donut and be hungry again pretty quickly but that doesn't mean I won't gain weight if I eat more food and wind up consuming more energy than I need.
I think you are missing the point. the writer suggest we heal ourselves emotionally - which takes far more work than exercise and counting cals - to begin to regulate our weight. healthy people don't abuse their bodies.
20 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »
well you have to eat only when you are HUNGRY...and most of us do not. in fact the book indicates we don't know what we feel most of the time...cuz WE ARE TOO BUSY STUFFING FOOD DOWN OUR THROATS..so the writer does have a point. if we only ate when we were hungry had emotional well being...exercised for health..then yes we would self regulate.
"Exercising for health" is not self regulating. It is a conscious, directed decision/action on one's part to elicit a specific desired outcome or outcomes. As is maintaining a consistent caloric deficit to lose weight, or eating to a particular calorie goal to maintain weight.9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »
well you have to eat only when you are HUNGRY...and most of us do not. in fact the book indicates we don't know what we feel most of the time...cuz WE ARE TOO BUSY STUFFING FOOD DOWN OUR THROATS..so the writer does have a point. if we only ate when we were hungry had emotional well being...exercised for health..then yes we would self regulate.
This would make sense if hunger indicated that we needed more calories, but it doesn't. Certain meals can be higher calorie but not as filling. For example, I can eat a donut and be hungry again pretty quickly but that doesn't mean I won't gain weight if I eat more food and wind up consuming more energy than I need.
I think you are missing the point. the writer suggest we heal ourselves emotionally - which takes far more work than exercise and counting cals - to begin to regulate our weight. healthy people don't abuse their bodies.
All of the emotional health in the world isn't going to change how satiety works. Someone can eat when they're hungry and still wind up consuming more energy than their body uses.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »
well you have to eat only when you are HUNGRY...and most of us do not. in fact the book indicates we don't know what we feel most of the time...cuz WE ARE TOO BUSY STUFFING FOOD DOWN OUR THROATS..so the writer does have a point. if we only ate when we were hungry had emotional well being...exercised for health..then yes we would self regulate.
This would make sense if hunger indicated that we needed more calories, but it doesn't. Certain meals can be higher calorie but not as filling. For example, I can eat a donut and be hungry again pretty quickly but that doesn't mean I won't gain weight if I eat more food and wind up consuming more energy than I need.
I think you are missing the point. the writer suggest we heal ourselves emotionally - which takes far more work than exercise and counting cals - to begin to regulate our weight. healthy people don't abuse their bodies.
I think there's an awful lot of context missing here, or an awful lot of assumptions are being made. Either way, what you're talking about (emotional health/eating) isn't, I don't think, what OP as getting at.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »
well you have to eat only when you are HUNGRY...and most of us do not. in fact the book indicates we don't know what we feel most of the time...cuz WE ARE TOO BUSY STUFFING FOOD DOWN OUR THROATS..so the writer does have a point. if we only ate when we were hungry had emotional well being...exercised for health..then yes we would self regulate.
This would make sense if hunger indicated that we needed more calories, but it doesn't. Certain meals can be higher calorie but not as filling. For example, I can eat a donut and be hungry again pretty quickly but that doesn't mean I won't gain weight if I eat more food and wind up consuming more energy than I need.
I think you are missing the point. the writer suggest we heal ourselves emotionally - which takes far more work than exercise and counting cals - to begin to regulate our weight. healthy people don't abuse their bodies.
So every overweight/obese person is "emotionally ill/injured"?
I don't buy that any more than I buy the rest of that line of thinking.4 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »
well you have to eat only when you are HUNGRY...and most of us do not. in fact the book indicates we don't know what we feel most of the time...cuz WE ARE TOO BUSY STUFFING FOOD DOWN OUR THROATS..so the writer does have a point. if we only ate when we were hungry had emotional well being...exercised for health..then yes we would self regulate.
What book are you paraphrasing? It might help us to know what you're referencing.6 -
As far as I can tell, if I eat a 'reasonable' amount of food and am reasonably active, my body will sit at at a 33 BMI for all eternity. It's really really good at regulating me in the 200 pound range
On the other hand, if I want to have a 'reasonable' weight -- under 25 or lower BMI -- I have to eat below 1300 calories a day. If I eat my TDEE -- or what the calculators say it is -- I gain. I don't consider eating less than 1000 calories a day (and yes, I weigh and measure) to be 'stuffing food down my throat'.
Being a short woman over 55 sucks, but that's the brutal truth. I'm really hoping I can deal with this this time, but it's *kitten* infuriating.12 -
As far as I can tell, if I eat a 'reasonable' amount of food and am reasonably active, my body will sit at at a 33 BMI for all eternity. It's really really good at regulating me in the 200 pound range
On the other hand, if I want to have a 'reasonable' weight -- under 25 or lower BMI -- I have to eat below 1300 calories a day. If I eat my TDEE -- or what the calculators say it is -- I gain. I don't consider eating less than 1000 calories a day (and yes, I weigh and measure) to be 'stuffing food down my throat'.
Being a short woman over 55 sucks, but that's the brutal truth. I'm really hoping I can deal with this this time, but it's *kitten* infuriating.
Your body isn't regulating itself, your habits and tendencies are.10 -
If you are not losing weight, you haven't been trying. Your Libra chart shows that you know how to do it. So, there's no reason you can't do it again.
25# is about 15% of your current weight at 150 and that to me is a lot of weight to want to lose.
So, you will need the same dedication and resolve you used to lose the 1st 40#, which was or about 20% of your wt in 2015, to lose the additional 25# or 15% of your wt that you say you want to lose now.
You just need to get serious about and busy doing it.
4 -
As far as I can tell, if I eat a 'reasonable' amount of food and am reasonably active, my body will sit at at a 33 BMI for all eternity. It's really really good at regulating me in the 200 pound range
On the other hand, if I want to have a 'reasonable' weight -- under 25 or lower BMI -- I have to eat below 1300 calories a day. If I eat my TDEE -- or what the calculators say it is -- I gain. I don't consider eating less than 1000 calories a day (and yes, I weigh and measure) to be 'stuffing food down my throat'.
Being a short woman over 55 sucks, but that's the brutal truth. I'm really hoping I can deal with this this time, but it's *kitten* infuriating.
You'll have lots of people jumping on you and me for saying this but in spite of everything, I fully believe that it is much easier for the average person to maintain a certain weight (not necessarily any specific weight, but any weight, period) than it is to either lose or gain, depending on what the person is more predisposed to based on metabolism, activity, NEAT etc. The vast majority of people out there are not measuring every bite with a food scale; most of them aren't even tracking calories at all or very very loosely (and I was one of them for years), which means their daily intakes probably vary wildly yet they aren't gaining and losing all over the place, they're typically keeping a fairly stable weight within a few lbs. People who majorly overeat will keep gaining, and anorexics may keep losing, but a large majority maintains without a second thought. I had that same experience personally - both at a higher weight where I struggled to lose, and at a lower weight where I was happy, didn't track and didn't gain. Yet if you come on here, people will tell you the calorie difference between your weighed banana and a banana from a database is why you can't lose weight. Say what you will, this makes no sense to me. I think the body tries to sustain homeostasis in weight, and it probably makes slight adjustments in how much it burns based on your daily intake to try and maintain. It is only when you have a very pronounced and consistent deficit or surplus that you weight will actually begin to change. For instance, I seriously doubt that one could manage to lose consistent weight on a deficit of, say, 100 calories, even if you were able to somehow get an exact, precise intake of those calories, such as a medically monitored liquid diet for instance. Your body would simply adjust. The deficit would need to be big enough that it would override these mechanisms (which is why the 'starving people' argument doesn't count here - you WILL lose if you starve, yet you may not lose if your deficit is too small for you, a rate which probably differs between people too).20 -
nettiklive wrote: »As far as I can tell, if I eat a 'reasonable' amount of food and am reasonably active, my body will sit at at a 33 BMI for all eternity. It's really really good at regulating me in the 200 pound range
On the other hand, if I want to have a 'reasonable' weight -- under 25 or lower BMI -- I have to eat below 1300 calories a day. If I eat my TDEE -- or what the calculators say it is -- I gain. I don't consider eating less than 1000 calories a day (and yes, I weigh and measure) to be 'stuffing food down my throat'.
Being a short woman over 55 sucks, but that's the brutal truth. I'm really hoping I can deal with this this time, but it's *kitten* infuriating.
You'll have lots of people jumping on you and me for saying this but in spite of everything, I fully believe that it is much easier for the average person to maintain a certain weight (not necessarily any specific weight, but any weight, period) than it is to either lose or gain, depending on what the person is more predisposed to based on metabolism, activity, NEAT etc. The vast majority of people out there are not measuring every bite with a food scale; most of them aren't even tracking calories at all or very very loosely (and I was one of them for years), which means their daily intakes probably vary wildly yet they aren't gaining and losing all over the place, they're typically keeping a fairly stable weight within a few lbs. People who majorly overeat will keep gaining, and anorexics may keep losing, but a large majority maintains without a second thought. I had that same experience personally - both at a higher weight where I struggled to lose, and at a lower weight where I was happy, didn't track and didn't gain. Yet if you come on here, people will tell you the calorie difference between your weighed banana and a banana from a database is why you can't lose weight. Say what you will, this makes no sense to me. I think the body tries to sustain homeostasis in weight, and it probably makes slight adjustments in how much it burns based on your daily intake to try and maintain. It is only when you have a very pronounced and consistent deficit or surplus that you weight will actually begin to change. For instance, I seriously doubt that one could manage to lose consistent weight on a deficit of, say, 100 calories, even if you were able to somehow get an exact, precise intake of those calories, such as a nutritional shake for instance. Your body would simply adjust. The deficit would need to be big enough that it would override these mechanisms (which is why the 'starving people' argument doesn't count here - you WILL lose if you starve, yet you may not lose if your deficit is too small for you, a rate which probably differs between people too).
So the whole obesity epidemic is just made up and everybody is a normal weight and maintains there without difficulty?
Or have people just somehow evolved over the last 50 years or so to just maintain at an overweight/obese bodyweight?8 -
nettiklive wrote: »As far as I can tell, if I eat a 'reasonable' amount of food and am reasonably active, my body will sit at at a 33 BMI for all eternity. It's really really good at regulating me in the 200 pound range
On the other hand, if I want to have a 'reasonable' weight -- under 25 or lower BMI -- I have to eat below 1300 calories a day. If I eat my TDEE -- or what the calculators say it is -- I gain. I don't consider eating less than 1000 calories a day (and yes, I weigh and measure) to be 'stuffing food down my throat'.
Being a short woman over 55 sucks, but that's the brutal truth. I'm really hoping I can deal with this this time, but it's *kitten* infuriating.
You'll have lots of people jumping on you and me for saying this but in spite of everything, I fully believe that it is much easier for the average person to maintain a certain weight (not necessarily any specific weight, but any weight, period) than it is to either lose or gain, depending on what the person is more predisposed to based on metabolism, activity, NEAT etc. The vast majority of people out there are not measuring every bite with a food scale; most of them aren't even tracking calories at all or very very loosely (and I was one of them for years), which means their daily intakes probably vary wildly yet they aren't gaining and losing all over the place, they're typically keeping a fairly stable weight within a few lbs. People who majorly overeat will keep gaining, and anorexics may keep losing, but a large majority maintains without a second thought. I had that same experience personally - both at a higher weight where I struggled to lose, and at a lower weight where I was happy, didn't track and didn't gain. Yet if you come on here, people will tell you the calorie difference between your weighed banana and a banana from a database is why you can't lose weight. Say what you will, this makes no sense to me. I think the body tries to sustain homeostasis in weight, and it probably makes slight adjustments in how much it burns based on your daily intake to try and maintain. It is only when you have a very pronounced and consistent deficit or surplus that you weight will actually begin to change. For instance, I seriously doubt that one could manage to lose consistent weight on a deficit of, say, 100 calories, even if you were able to somehow get an exact, precise intake of those calories, such as a nutritional shake for instance. Your body would simply adjust. The deficit would need to be big enough that it would override these mechanisms (which is why the 'starving people' argument doesn't count here - you WILL lose if you starve, yet you may not lose if your deficit is too small for you, a rate which probably differs between people too).
So the whole obesity epidemic is just made up and everybody is a normal weight and maintains there without difficulty?
Or have people just somehow evolved over the last 50 years or so to just maintain at an overweight/obese bodyweight?
You missed the sentence right after:
People who majorly overeat will keep gaining,
Plenty of people are obese because they overeat. You can overeat for various reasons, ignoring hunger signals, portion sizes, too much calorie dense food. But not everyone who is not obese tracks calories even remotely. Some remain overweight, some average, and some thin. In fact, the slimmest people I know eat whatever they want without a second thought. And even most overweight people are know aren't just continuously gaining weight - those are usually the extreme obesity cases. Several slightly overweight women I know have stayed the same weight for years - they've gone up to it with less-than-perfect eating perhaps, but then they continue to eat an average intake, not lose and not gain. Those who end up losing are usually those who really put in a lot of work or make drastic changes, not simply eating 100-200 calories less a day.8 -
nettiklive wrote: »Plenty of people are obese because they overeat. You can overeat for various reasons, ignoring hunger signals, portion sizes, too much calorie dense food. But not everyone who is not obese tracks calories even remotely. Some remain overweight, some average, and some thin. In fact, the slimmest people I know eat whatever they want without a second thought. And even most overweight people are know aren't just continuously gaining weight - those are usually the extreme obesity cases. Several slightly overweight women I know have stayed the same weight for years - they've gone up to it with less-than-perfect eating perhaps, but then they continue to eat an average intake, not lose and not gain. Those who end up losing are usually those who really put in a lot of work or make drastic changes, not simply eating 100-200 calories less a day.
This is interesting as I am going to split some hairs here ;-)
First of all, you called, because you mentioned "simply eating 100-200 calories less a day."
I draw your attention to my second year on MFP.
Paper deficit = 204 Cal a day.
Implicit deficit based on weight lost: 106 Cal a day.
Now. Having said that. I also draw your attention to two things:
That there IS a difference in how close Fitbit TDEE and Implicit TDEE tracked between when I was obese and when I got closer to normal weight. AND that the difference while appreciable is nevertheless NOT extreme.
It is my own observation that there is a definite degree of elasticity when eating at approximate maintenance. Sort of like pushing up or pushing down.
When I am "pushing up", I almost always see an increase in my "Fitbit" resting heart rate and faster nail (even facial hair) growth.
Trending down is almost always preceded by a reduction of my Fitbit resting heart rate and certainly no particular need to trim nails!
From highest to lowest the change has been as high as 15bpm (let's call it ranging from a low of 55 to a high of 70 bpm). Usually it is limited to a narrower swing of 6 to 8 bpm, swinging to up to 10 bpm when I apply 500 Cal deficits.
So compensatory changes take place and I am sure that for some people these will be less pronounced and for others they will be much more pronounced (see multiple discussions as to whether adaptive thermogenesis exists and whether its effects are substantial and/or permanent and to what degree)
But once that level of compensation is exhausted, a persistent application of a further deficit, or surplus will go on to produce results.
The difference is that as you said most people do not track. Therefore when their body compensates they go with the flow and adjust.
In other words they do NOT succeed in actually applying the average 200/100 Cal stimulus over a long enough period of time.14 -
Thank you everyone! To answer a few more questions I saw on here. I have been calorie counting once again since the beginning of March. I started exercising about a week in to calorie counting.1
-
PrincessSlytherin wrote: »Thank you everyone! To answer a few more questions I saw on here. I have been calorie counting once again since the beginning of March. I started exercising about a week in to calorie counting.
It's possible you were dealing with some water weight issues right through March, and if the timing of your monthly cycle coincided with the new exercise water weight in the absolute worst way, might have carried those issues into April.
If I were you, I would set my goal to no more than 1 lb per week, and really commit to logging accurately, eating back half of your exercise calories, and hitting that calorie goal like a boss for 2 months. Then if you aren't losing at the expected rate, eat back less of the exercise cals if you need to.
I agree with everyone else that it looks like you know what you're doing and some little tweaks is probably all you need. Hang in there!
4 -
It is only when you have a very pronounced and consistent deficit or surplus that you weight will actually begin to change. For instance, I seriously doubt that one could manage to lose consistent weight on a deficit of, say, 100 calories, even if you were able to somehow get an exact, precise intake of those calories, such as a medically monitored liquid diet for instance. Your body would simply adjust. The deficit would need to be big enough that it would override these mechanisms (which is why the 'starving people' argument doesn't count here - you WILL lose if you starve, yet you may not lose if your deficit is too small for you, a rate which probably differs between people too).
I would love to see this studied. I find it reasonable that there’s a “homeostasis mode”
where 100 or so calories either way will not trigger weight loss or gain but would instead lead to minor metabolic adaptations. This, as you pointed out, wouldn’t challenge the general truth that is CICO. It would add some slight complexity to it though and could perhaps help people choose a more effective caloric deficit and activity level.
1 -
nettiklive wrote: »Plenty of people are obese because they overeat. You can overeat for various reasons, ignoring hunger signals, portion sizes, too much calorie dense food. But not everyone who is not obese tracks calories even remotely. Some remain overweight, some average, and some thin. In fact, the slimmest people I know eat whatever they want without a second thought. And even most overweight people are know aren't just continuously gaining weight - those are usually the extreme obesity cases. Several slightly overweight women I know have stayed the same weight for years - they've gone up to it with less-than-perfect eating perhaps, but then they continue to eat an average intake, not lose and not gain. Those who end up losing are usually those who really put in a lot of work or make drastic changes, not simply eating 100-200 calories less a day.
This is interesting as I am going to split some hairs here ;-)
First of all, you called, because you mentioned "simply eating 100-200 calories less a day."
I draw your attention to my second year on MFP.
Paper deficit = 204 Cal a day.
Implicit deficit based on weight lost: 106 Cal a day.
Now. Having said that. I also draw your attention to two things:
That there IS a difference in how close Fitbit TDEE and Implicit TDEE tracked between when I was obese and when I got closer to normal weight. AND that the difference while appreciable is nevertheless NOT extreme.
It is my own observation that there is a definite degree of elasticity when eating at approximate maintenance. Sort of like pushing up or pushing down.
When I am "pushing up", I almost always see an increase in my "Fitbit" resting heart rate and faster nail (even facial hair) growth.
Trending down is almost always preceded by a reduction of my Fitbit resting heart rate and certainly no particular need to trim nails!
From highest to lowest the change has been as high as 15bpm (let's call it ranging from a low of 55 to a high of 70 bpm). Usually it is limited to a narrower swing of 6 to 8 bpm, swinging to up to 10 bpm when I apply 500 Cal deficits.
So compensatory changes take place and I am sure that for some people these will be less pronounced and for others they will be much more pronounced (see multiple discussions as to whether adaptive thermogenesis exists and whether its effects are substantial and/or permanent and to what degree)
But once that level of compensation is exhausted, a persistent application of a further deficit, or surplus will go on to produce results.
The difference is that as you said most people do not track. Therefore when their body compensates they go with the flow and adjust.
In other words they do NOT succeed in actually applying the average 200/100 Cal stimulus over a long enough period of time.
Yes, this kind of stuff was exactly what I meant. People on a deficit also tend to feel colder, have less energy etc. Of course the body is limited in just how much energy it could conserve that way, but it is something, so if your deficit is very small like those 100 calories, it could very well compensate for it.
If you don't believe that's the case, then answer this: WHY exactly do all those changes take place, like feeling colder, having slower nail and hair growth, less energy etc? Why does the body not just burn fat to keep all these things going as usual? Yet it doesn't. I think that shows that the fat-burning process isn't quite as straightforward as people here claim. And fat-burning alone is not efficient enough to provide for all of our energy needs, otherwise overweight people could survive with zero food until they reached their desired weight, yet they can't. Even increased hunger signals and our preference for rich, calorie-dense food are evolutionary mechanisms designed to conserve energy stores. So it's a bit shortsighted to claim that 'the body doesn't 'want' to do anything, it's all all your habits'. That's not to say you can't consciously override all these things but they are present as part of the body's evolutionary makeup.7 -
Chunkahlunkah wrote: »It is only when you have a very pronounced and consistent deficit or surplus that you weight will actually begin to change. For instance, I seriously doubt that one could manage to lose consistent weight on a deficit of, say, 100 calories, even if you were able to somehow get an exact, precise intake of those calories, such as a medically monitored liquid diet for instance. Your body would simply adjust. The deficit would need to be big enough that it would override these mechanisms (which is why the 'starving people' argument doesn't count here - you WILL lose if you starve, yet you may not lose if your deficit is too small for you, a rate which probably differs between people too).
I would love to see this studied. I find it reasonable that there’s a “homeostasis mode” where 100 or so calories either way will not trigger weight loss or gain but would instead lead to minor metabolic adaptations. This, as you pointed out, wouldn’t challenge the general truth that is CICO. It would add some slight complexity to it though and could perhaps help people choose a more effective caloric deficit and activity level.
@PAV8888 touched on this above, but I think it's worth noting that we know that most people move a little bit more in response to even a small calorie surplus and vice versa. This could easily account for a couple hundred calories one way or another without anything being noticeable to the individual. I suspect this accounts for the majority of "unconscious maintenance" rather than metabolic adaption. It just seems like the simplest answer, and also explains why so many people manage to maintain a healthy weight for years without much or any effort, then gain (or, less often, lose) when a major life change disrupts their usual habits (moving from an active to a sedentary job, marriage, childbirth, illness, etc).7 -
nettiklive wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »Plenty of people are obese because they overeat. You can overeat for various reasons, ignoring hunger signals, portion sizes, too much calorie dense food. But not everyone who is not obese tracks calories even remotely. Some remain overweight, some average, and some thin. In fact, the slimmest people I know eat whatever they want without a second thought. And even most overweight people are know aren't just continuously gaining weight - those are usually the extreme obesity cases. Several slightly overweight women I know have stayed the same weight for years - they've gone up to it with less-than-perfect eating perhaps, but then they continue to eat an average intake, not lose and not gain. Those who end up losing are usually those who really put in a lot of work or make drastic changes, not simply eating 100-200 calories less a day.
This is interesting as I am going to split some hairs here ;-)
First of all, you called, because you mentioned "simply eating 100-200 calories less a day."
I draw your attention to my second year on MFP.
Paper deficit = 204 Cal a day.
Implicit deficit based on weight lost: 106 Cal a day.
Now. Having said that. I also draw your attention to two things:
That there IS a difference in how close Fitbit TDEE and Implicit TDEE tracked between when I was obese and when I got closer to normal weight. AND that the difference while appreciable is nevertheless NOT extreme.
It is my own observation that there is a definite degree of elasticity when eating at approximate maintenance. Sort of like pushing up or pushing down.
When I am "pushing up", I almost always see an increase in my "Fitbit" resting heart rate and faster nail (even facial hair) growth.
Trending down is almost always preceded by a reduction of my Fitbit resting heart rate and certainly no particular need to trim nails!
From highest to lowest the change has been as high as 15bpm (let's call it ranging from a low of 55 to a high of 70 bpm). Usually it is limited to a narrower swing of 6 to 8 bpm, swinging to up to 10 bpm when I apply 500 Cal deficits.
So compensatory changes take place and I am sure that for some people these will be less pronounced and for others they will be much more pronounced (see multiple discussions as to whether adaptive thermogenesis exists and whether its effects are substantial and/or permanent and to what degree)
But once that level of compensation is exhausted, a persistent application of a further deficit, or surplus will go on to produce results.
The difference is that as you said most people do not track. Therefore when their body compensates they go with the flow and adjust.
In other words they do NOT succeed in actually applying the average 200/100 Cal stimulus over a long enough period of time.
Yes, this kind of stuff was exactly what I meant. People on a deficit also tend to feel colder, have less energy etc. Of course the body is limited in just how much energy it could conserve that way, but it is something, so if your deficit is very small like those 100 calories, it could very well compensate for it.
If you don't believe that's the case, then answer this: WHY exactly do all those changes take place, like feeling colder, having slower nail and hair growth, less energy etc? Why does the body not just burn fat to keep all these things going as usual? Yet it doesn't. I think that shows that the fat-burning process isn't quite as straightforward as people here claim. And fat-burning alone is not efficient enough to provide for all of our energy needs, otherwise overweight people could survive with zero food until they reached their desired weight, yet they can't. Even increased hunger signals and our preference for rich, calorie-dense food are evolutionary mechanisms designed to conserve energy stores. So it's a bit shortsighted to claim that 'the body doesn't 'want' to do anything, it's all all your habits'. That's not to say you can't consciously override all these things but they are present as part of the body's evolutionary makeup.
You're way overthinking this. Classic "paralysis by analysis".11 -
nettiklive wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »Plenty of people are obese because they overeat. You can overeat for various reasons, ignoring hunger signals, portion sizes, too much calorie dense food. But not everyone who is not obese tracks calories even remotely. Some remain overweight, some average, and some thin. In fact, the slimmest people I know eat whatever they want without a second thought. And even most overweight people are know aren't just continuously gaining weight - those are usually the extreme obesity cases. Several slightly overweight women I know have stayed the same weight for years - they've gone up to it with less-than-perfect eating perhaps, but then they continue to eat an average intake, not lose and not gain. Those who end up losing are usually those who really put in a lot of work or make drastic changes, not simply eating 100-200 calories less a day.
This is interesting as I am going to split some hairs here ;-)
First of all, you called, because you mentioned "simply eating 100-200 calories less a day."
I draw your attention to my second year on MFP.
Paper deficit = 204 Cal a day.
Implicit deficit based on weight lost: 106 Cal a day.
Now. Having said that. I also draw your attention to two things:
That there IS a difference in how close Fitbit TDEE and Implicit TDEE tracked between when I was obese and when I got closer to normal weight. AND that the difference while appreciable is nevertheless NOT extreme.
It is my own observation that there is a definite degree of elasticity when eating at approximate maintenance. Sort of like pushing up or pushing down.
When I am "pushing up", I almost always see an increase in my "Fitbit" resting heart rate and faster nail (even facial hair) growth.
Trending down is almost always preceded by a reduction of my Fitbit resting heart rate and certainly no particular need to trim nails!
From highest to lowest the change has been as high as 15bpm (let's call it ranging from a low of 55 to a high of 70 bpm). Usually it is limited to a narrower swing of 6 to 8 bpm, swinging to up to 10 bpm when I apply 500 Cal deficits.
So compensatory changes take place and I am sure that for some people these will be less pronounced and for others they will be much more pronounced (see multiple discussions as to whether adaptive thermogenesis exists and whether its effects are substantial and/or permanent and to what degree)
But once that level of compensation is exhausted, a persistent application of a further deficit, or surplus will go on to produce results.
The difference is that as you said most people do not track. Therefore when their body compensates they go with the flow and adjust.
In other words they do NOT succeed in actually applying the average 200/100 Cal stimulus over a long enough period of time.
Yes, this kind of stuff was exactly what I meant. People on a deficit also tend to feel colder, have less energy etc. Of course the body is limited in just how much energy it could conserve that way, but it is something, so if your deficit is very small like those 100 calories, it could very well compensate for it.
If you don't believe that's the case, then answer this: WHY exactly do all those changes take place, like feeling colder, having slower nail and hair growth, less energy etc? Why does the body not just burn fat to keep all these things going as usual? Yet it doesn't. I think that shows that the fat-burning process isn't quite as straightforward as people here claim. And fat-burning alone is not efficient enough to provide for all of our energy needs, otherwise overweight people could survive with zero food until they reached their desired weight, yet they can't. Even increased hunger signals and our preference for rich, calorie-dense food are evolutionary mechanisms designed to conserve energy stores. So it's a bit shortsighted to claim that 'the body doesn't 'want' to do anything, it's all all your habits'. That's not to say you can't consciously override all these things but they are present as part of the body's evolutionary makeup.
If you would like to debate this, maybe you could start your own thread in the Debate Forum rather than hijacking OP's thread please? It seems like she is looking for advice, not a debate, and her follow up post might get overshadowed!9 -
nettiklive wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »Plenty of people are obese because they overeat. You can overeat for various reasons, ignoring hunger signals, portion sizes, too much calorie dense food. But not everyone who is not obese tracks calories even remotely. Some remain overweight, some average, and some thin. In fact, the slimmest people I know eat whatever they want without a second thought. And even most overweight people are know aren't just continuously gaining weight - those are usually the extreme obesity cases. Several slightly overweight women I know have stayed the same weight for years - they've gone up to it with less-than-perfect eating perhaps, but then they continue to eat an average intake, not lose and not gain. Those who end up losing are usually those who really put in a lot of work or make drastic changes, not simply eating 100-200 calories less a day.
This is interesting as I am going to split some hairs here ;-)
First of all, you called, because you mentioned "simply eating 100-200 calories less a day."
I draw your attention to my second year on MFP.
Paper deficit = 204 Cal a day.
Implicit deficit based on weight lost: 106 Cal a day.
Now. Having said that. I also draw your attention to two things:
That there IS a difference in how close Fitbit TDEE and Implicit TDEE tracked between when I was obese and when I got closer to normal weight. AND that the difference while appreciable is nevertheless NOT extreme.
It is my own observation that there is a definite degree of elasticity when eating at approximate maintenance. Sort of like pushing up or pushing down.
When I am "pushing up", I almost always see an increase in my "Fitbit" resting heart rate and faster nail (even facial hair) growth.
Trending down is almost always preceded by a reduction of my Fitbit resting heart rate and certainly no particular need to trim nails!
From highest to lowest the change has been as high as 15bpm (let's call it ranging from a low of 55 to a high of 70 bpm). Usually it is limited to a narrower swing of 6 to 8 bpm, swinging to up to 10 bpm when I apply 500 Cal deficits.
So compensatory changes take place and I am sure that for some people these will be less pronounced and for others they will be much more pronounced (see multiple discussions as to whether adaptive thermogenesis exists and whether its effects are substantial and/or permanent and to what degree)
But once that level of compensation is exhausted, a persistent application of a further deficit, or surplus will go on to produce results.
The difference is that as you said most people do not track. Therefore when their body compensates they go with the flow and adjust.
In other words they do NOT succeed in actually applying the average 200/100 Cal stimulus over a long enough period of time.
Yes, this kind of stuff was exactly what I meant. People on a deficit also tend to feel colder, have less energy etc. Of course the body is limited in just how much energy it could conserve that way, but it is something, so if your deficit is very small like those 100 calories, it could very well compensate for it.
If you don't believe that's the case, then answer this: WHY exactly do all those changes take place, like feeling colder, having slower nail and hair growth, less energy etc? Why does the body not just burn fat to keep all these things going as usual? Yet it doesn't. I think that shows that the fat-burning process isn't quite as straightforward as people here claim. And fat-burning alone is not efficient enough to provide for all of our energy needs, otherwise overweight people could survive with zero food until they reached their desired weight, yet they can't. Even increased hunger signals and our preference for rich, calorie-dense food are evolutionary mechanisms designed to conserve energy stores. So it's a bit shortsighted to claim that 'the body doesn't 'want' to do anything, it's all all your habits'. That's not to say you can't consciously override all these things but they are present as part of the body's evolutionary makeup.
If you would like to debate this, maybe you could start your own thread in the Debate Forum rather than hijacking OP's thread please? It seems like she is looking for advice, not a debate, and her follow up post might get overshadowed!
Thanks for the reminder, @kimny72.PrincessSlytherin wrote: »Thank you everyone! To answer a few more questions I saw on here. I have been calorie counting once again since the beginning of March. I started exercising about a week in to calorie counting.
You're early days still - it takes time to get a hang of calorie counting (even if you've done it before!), but you can definitely do it. All these side conversations boil down to the fact that this isn't an exact science - there's a lot of fuzziness around the margins. The good news, however, is that CICO is a scientific fact and if you don't get too hung up on the minutia, you absolutely can lose weight through calorie counting. The most important thing isn't precision (which is impossible) but consistency. Pick a strategy, stick to it for 4-6 weeks, and adjust if needed based on your results. Good luck!6 -
After reading everyone's input I feel a lot more confident moving forward. I am going to follow the advice given and tighten up on my logging and give myself some more time to adjust to my new routine. I guess it just gets scary when I am not seeing the results I expected, but it seems to be what this is. It's a waiting game, but now I can make some small adjustments to hopefully help myself reach my goal!17
-
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »Plenty of people are obese because they overeat. You can overeat for various reasons, ignoring hunger signals, portion sizes, too much calorie dense food. But not everyone who is not obese tracks calories even remotely. Some remain overweight, some average, and some thin. In fact, the slimmest people I know eat whatever they want without a second thought. And even most overweight people are know aren't just continuously gaining weight - those are usually the extreme obesity cases. Several slightly overweight women I know have stayed the same weight for years - they've gone up to it with less-than-perfect eating perhaps, but then they continue to eat an average intake, not lose and not gain. Those who end up losing are usually those who really put in a lot of work or make drastic changes, not simply eating 100-200 calories less a day.
This is interesting as I am going to split some hairs here ;-)
First of all, you called, because you mentioned "simply eating 100-200 calories less a day."
I draw your attention to my second year on MFP.
Paper deficit = 204 Cal a day.
Implicit deficit based on weight lost: 106 Cal a day.
Now. Having said that. I also draw your attention to two things:
That there IS a difference in how close Fitbit TDEE and Implicit TDEE tracked between when I was obese and when I got closer to normal weight. AND that the difference while appreciable is nevertheless NOT extreme.
It is my own observation that there is a definite degree of elasticity when eating at approximate maintenance. Sort of like pushing up or pushing down.
When I am "pushing up", I almost always see an increase in my "Fitbit" resting heart rate and faster nail (even facial hair) growth.
Trending down is almost always preceded by a reduction of my Fitbit resting heart rate and certainly no particular need to trim nails!
From highest to lowest the change has been as high as 15bpm (let's call it ranging from a low of 55 to a high of 70 bpm). Usually it is limited to a narrower swing of 6 to 8 bpm, swinging to up to 10 bpm when I apply 500 Cal deficits.
So compensatory changes take place and I am sure that for some people these will be less pronounced and for others they will be much more pronounced (see multiple discussions as to whether adaptive thermogenesis exists and whether its effects are substantial and/or permanent and to what degree)
But once that level of compensation is exhausted, a persistent application of a further deficit, or surplus will go on to produce results.
The difference is that as you said most people do not track. Therefore when their body compensates they go with the flow and adjust.
In other words they do NOT succeed in actually applying the average 200/100 Cal stimulus over a long enough period of time.
Yes, this kind of stuff was exactly what I meant. People on a deficit also tend to feel colder, have less energy etc. Of course the body is limited in just how much energy it could conserve that way, but it is something, so if your deficit is very small like those 100 calories, it could very well compensate for it.
If you don't believe that's the case, then answer this: WHY exactly do all those changes take place, like feeling colder, having slower nail and hair growth, less energy etc? Why does the body not just burn fat to keep all these things going as usual? Yet it doesn't. I think that shows that the fat-burning process isn't quite as straightforward as people here claim. And fat-burning alone is not efficient enough to provide for all of our energy needs, otherwise overweight people could survive with zero food until they reached their desired weight, yet they can't. Even increased hunger signals and our preference for rich, calorie-dense food are evolutionary mechanisms designed to conserve energy stores. So it's a bit shortsighted to claim that 'the body doesn't 'want' to do anything, it's all all your habits'. That's not to say you can't consciously override all these things but they are present as part of the body's evolutionary makeup.
Really sad that people with no clue about the science of fat burning and fat for energy are giving such horrible and B.S. advice on forums like this. Your body can and will and would rather live from running on energy from burning fat than that of glucose. Do some research on intermittent fasting and ketogenics and keto adaptation and see how successful and happy people are that follow those lifestyles ONLY running on burning fat for energy. And the whole caloric deficit rule is crap when it comes to having a keto adapted metabolism too. Burn as much fat as you want if you are in ketosis and intermittent fasting. The state our bodies should all be in while still taking in perfect nutrients every day. And build muscle at the same time if you want to. The way society is today and the crap that fills our groceries is the reason diabetes and obesity is the highest it's ever been in the world. Humans are not designed to be grazers eating processed, sugar filled garbage multiple times a day. Not any kind of food multiple times of day. Have you heard of evolution of species? How old is the human? Not old at all. We have not evolved past our hunter gatherer set up genetic make up of that kind of metabolism. We are designed to not eat all the time. Get your body into a fat burning metabolism and never look back. When you reach your fat % and lean body mass you want then adjust your macro's to where you stay that fit body ratio and you'll be set. And please don't listen to the B.S. all over some of these posts that say only lose 1 to 2 lbs per week for "healthy" weight loss. That's more crap based on old science and based on a non fat burning metabolism. Research, research, research yourself. And don't trust what any one says on a forum. Learn from up to date doctors. Not old B.S. outdated science and people that just re post what they heard from others here. Go on youtube and look up Dr. Eric Berg and Dr. Fung and Diet Doctor pages. I've lost 47 lbs in 77 days and have gained lean muscle mass while doing it and have more energy every day than I ever have in my life and I'm 44 years old. Body runs on pure fat burning every day. But again...don't take my word for it. Research it. Then do it.
Berg is a chiropractor, not an authority on nutrition. He is way out of his field of expertise and has run afoul of the law for his questionable practices in the past. Fung is a laughingstock amongst evidence-based researchers and his silly theories have been shot out of the sky numerous times by people who actually know something about physiology. Dietdoctor is a keto propaganda website so full of woo that it makes Dr. Oz look credible.
I'd agree with the advice to "research it" - but the above sources are not "research", they're ketovangelist propaganda. 99% of what you wrote in your post above is physiologically incorrect and does not accurately describe how the body works, nor how keto actually works.
Come on, losing 47 pounds in 77 days while adding muscle mass to the body is seriously impressive. I'm heading to YouTube to catch up on all this research and learn more! Just have to unhook my grazing bag so I have a full view of the computer screen.8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »Plenty of people are obese because they overeat. You can overeat for various reasons, ignoring hunger signals, portion sizes, too much calorie dense food. But not everyone who is not obese tracks calories even remotely. Some remain overweight, some average, and some thin. In fact, the slimmest people I know eat whatever they want without a second thought. And even most overweight people are know aren't just continuously gaining weight - those are usually the extreme obesity cases. Several slightly overweight women I know have stayed the same weight for years - they've gone up to it with less-than-perfect eating perhaps, but then they continue to eat an average intake, not lose and not gain. Those who end up losing are usually those who really put in a lot of work or make drastic changes, not simply eating 100-200 calories less a day.
This is interesting as I am going to split some hairs here ;-)
First of all, you called, because you mentioned "simply eating 100-200 calories less a day."
I draw your attention to my second year on MFP.
Paper deficit = 204 Cal a day.
Implicit deficit based on weight lost: 106 Cal a day.
Now. Having said that. I also draw your attention to two things:
That there IS a difference in how close Fitbit TDEE and Implicit TDEE tracked between when I was obese and when I got closer to normal weight. AND that the difference while appreciable is nevertheless NOT extreme.
It is my own observation that there is a definite degree of elasticity when eating at approximate maintenance. Sort of like pushing up or pushing down.
When I am "pushing up", I almost always see an increase in my "Fitbit" resting heart rate and faster nail (even facial hair) growth.
Trending down is almost always preceded by a reduction of my Fitbit resting heart rate and certainly no particular need to trim nails!
From highest to lowest the change has been as high as 15bpm (let's call it ranging from a low of 55 to a high of 70 bpm). Usually it is limited to a narrower swing of 6 to 8 bpm, swinging to up to 10 bpm when I apply 500 Cal deficits.
So compensatory changes take place and I am sure that for some people these will be less pronounced and for others they will be much more pronounced (see multiple discussions as to whether adaptive thermogenesis exists and whether its effects are substantial and/or permanent and to what degree)
But once that level of compensation is exhausted, a persistent application of a further deficit, or surplus will go on to produce results.
The difference is that as you said most people do not track. Therefore when their body compensates they go with the flow and adjust.
In other words they do NOT succeed in actually applying the average 200/100 Cal stimulus over a long enough period of time.
Yes, this kind of stuff was exactly what I meant. People on a deficit also tend to feel colder, have less energy etc. Of course the body is limited in just how much energy it could conserve that way, but it is something, so if your deficit is very small like those 100 calories, it could very well compensate for it.
If you don't believe that's the case, then answer this: WHY exactly do all those changes take place, like feeling colder, having slower nail and hair growth, less energy etc? Why does the body not just burn fat to keep all these things going as usual? Yet it doesn't. I think that shows that the fat-burning process isn't quite as straightforward as people here claim. And fat-burning alone is not efficient enough to provide for all of our energy needs, otherwise overweight people could survive with zero food until they reached their desired weight, yet they can't. Even increased hunger signals and our preference for rich, calorie-dense food are evolutionary mechanisms designed to conserve energy stores. So it's a bit shortsighted to claim that 'the body doesn't 'want' to do anything, it's all all your habits'. That's not to say you can't consciously override all these things but they are present as part of the body's evolutionary makeup.
Really sad that people with no clue about the science of fat burning and fat for energy are giving such horrible and B.S. advice on forums like this. Your body can and will and would rather live from running on energy from burning fat than that of glucose. Do some research on intermittent fasting and ketogenics and keto adaptation and see how successful and happy people are that follow those lifestyles ONLY running on burning fat for energy. And the whole caloric deficit rule is crap when it comes to having a keto adapted metabolism too. Burn as much fat as you want if you are in ketosis and intermittent fasting. The state our bodies should all be in while still taking in perfect nutrients every day. And build muscle at the same time if you want to. The way society is today and the crap that fills our groceries is the reason diabetes and obesity is the highest it's ever been in the world. Humans are not designed to be grazers eating processed, sugar filled garbage multiple times a day. Not any kind of food multiple times of day. Have you heard of evolution of species? How old is the human? Not old at all. We have not evolved past our hunter gatherer set up genetic make up of that kind of metabolism. We are designed to not eat all the time. Get your body into a fat burning metabolism and never look back. When you reach your fat % and lean body mass you want then adjust your macro's to where you stay that fit body ratio and you'll be set. And please don't listen to the B.S. all over some of these posts that say only lose 1 to 2 lbs per week for "healthy" weight loss. That's more crap based on old science and based on a non fat burning metabolism. Research, research, research yourself. And don't trust what any one says on a forum. Learn from up to date doctors. Not old B.S. outdated science and people that just re post what they heard from others here. Go on youtube and look up Dr. Eric Berg and Dr. Fung and Diet Doctor pages. I've lost 47 lbs in 77 days and have gained lean muscle mass while doing it and have more energy every day than I ever have in my life and I'm 44 years old. Body runs on pure fat burning every day. But again...don't take my word for it. Research it. Then do it.
Berg is a chiropractor, not an authority on nutrition. He is way out of his field of expertise and has run afoul of the law for his questionable practices in the past. Fung is a laughingstock amongst evidence-based researchers and his silly theories have been shot out of the sky numerous times by people who actually know something about physiology. Dietdoctor is a keto propaganda website so full of woo that it makes Dr. Oz look credible.
I'd agree with the advice to "research it" - but the above sources are not "research", they're ketovangelist propaganda. 99% of what you wrote in your post above is physiologically incorrect and does not accurately describe how the body works, nor how keto actually works.
Come on, losing 47 pounds in 77 days while adding muscle mass to the body is seriously impressive. I'm heading to YouTube to catch up on all this research and learn more! Just have to unhook my grazing bag so I have a full view of the computer screen.
If somebody did actually somehow manage to really lose 47 pounds in 77 days, I can 100% guarantee that they didn't gain muscle mass while doing it. Not by any reliable means of measurement.
I'd also like to see how they would prove that their "body runs on pure fat burning every day", because that's not how any of this works.7 -
PrincessSlytherin wrote: »After reading everyone's input I feel a lot more confident moving forward. I am going to follow the advice given and tighten up on my logging and give myself some more time to adjust to my new routine. I guess it just gets scary when I am not seeing the results I expected, but it seems to be what this is. It's a waiting game, but now I can make some small adjustments to hopefully help myself reach my goal!
If you haven't already, you might also benefit from making a list of non-scale victories - there's a massive thread over in the success forum that can be a big help with ideas. It's definitely frustrating not to see results right away, but the only way to fail is to give up.
@janejellyroll @AnvilHead *clears throat, throws meaningful glances at debate forum*3 -
PaulChasinDreams wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »Plenty of people are obese because they overeat. You can overeat for various reasons, ignoring hunger signals, portion sizes, too much calorie dense food. But not everyone who is not obese tracks calories even remotely. Some remain overweight, some average, and some thin. In fact, the slimmest people I know eat whatever they want without a second thought. And even most overweight people are know aren't just continuously gaining weight - those are usually the extreme obesity cases. Several slightly overweight women I know have stayed the same weight for years - they've gone up to it with less-than-perfect eating perhaps, but then they continue to eat an average intake, not lose and not gain. Those who end up losing are usually those who really put in a lot of work or make drastic changes, not simply eating 100-200 calories less a day.
This is interesting as I am going to split some hairs here ;-)
First of all, you called, because you mentioned "simply eating 100-200 calories less a day."
I draw your attention to my second year on MFP.
Paper deficit = 204 Cal a day.
Implicit deficit based on weight lost: 106 Cal a day.
Now. Having said that. I also draw your attention to two things:
That there IS a difference in how close Fitbit TDEE and Implicit TDEE tracked between when I was obese and when I got closer to normal weight. AND that the difference while appreciable is nevertheless NOT extreme.
It is my own observation that there is a definite degree of elasticity when eating at approximate maintenance. Sort of like pushing up or pushing down.
When I am "pushing up", I almost always see an increase in my "Fitbit" resting heart rate and faster nail (even facial hair) growth.
Trending down is almost always preceded by a reduction of my Fitbit resting heart rate and certainly no particular need to trim nails!
From highest to lowest the change has been as high as 15bpm (let's call it ranging from a low of 55 to a high of 70 bpm). Usually it is limited to a narrower swing of 6 to 8 bpm, swinging to up to 10 bpm when I apply 500 Cal deficits.
So compensatory changes take place and I am sure that for some people these will be less pronounced and for others they will be much more pronounced (see multiple discussions as to whether adaptive thermogenesis exists and whether its effects are substantial and/or permanent and to what degree)
But once that level of compensation is exhausted, a persistent application of a further deficit, or surplus will go on to produce results.
The difference is that as you said most people do not track. Therefore when their body compensates they go with the flow and adjust.
In other words they do NOT succeed in actually applying the average 200/100 Cal stimulus over a long enough period of time.
Yes, this kind of stuff was exactly what I meant. People on a deficit also tend to feel colder, have less energy etc. Of course the body is limited in just how much energy it could conserve that way, but it is something, so if your deficit is very small like those 100 calories, it could very well compensate for it.
If you don't believe that's the case, then answer this: WHY exactly do all those changes take place, like feeling colder, having slower nail and hair growth, less energy etc? Why does the body not just burn fat to keep all these things going as usual? Yet it doesn't. I think that shows that the fat-burning process isn't quite as straightforward as people here claim. And fat-burning alone is not efficient enough to provide for all of our energy needs, otherwise overweight people could survive with zero food until they reached their desired weight, yet they can't. Even increased hunger signals and our preference for rich, calorie-dense food are evolutionary mechanisms designed to conserve energy stores. So it's a bit shortsighted to claim that 'the body doesn't 'want' to do anything, it's all all your habits'. That's not to say you can't consciously override all these things but they are present as part of the body's evolutionary makeup.
Really sad that people with no clue about the science of fat burning and fat for energy are giving such horrible and B.S. advice on forums like this. Your body can and will and would rather live from running on energy from burning fat than that of glucose. Do some research on intermittent fasting and ketogenics and keto adaptation and see how successful and happy people are that follow those lifestyles ONLY running on burning fat for energy. And the whole caloric deficit rule is crap when it comes to having a keto adapted metabolism too. Burn as much fat as you want if you are in ketosis and intermittent fasting. The state our bodies should all be in while still taking in perfect nutrients every day. And build muscle at the same time if you want to. The way society is today and the crap that fills our groceries is the reason diabetes and obesity is the highest it's ever been in the world. Humans are not designed to be grazers eating processed, sugar filled garbage multiple times a day. Not any kind of food multiple times of day. Have you heard of evolution of species? How old is the human? Not old at all. We have not evolved past our hunter gatherer set up genetic make up of that kind of metabolism. We are designed to not eat all the time. Get your body into a fat burning metabolism and never look back. When you reach your fat % and lean body mass you want then adjust your macro's to where you stay that fit body ratio and you'll be set. And please don't listen to the B.S. all over some of these posts that say only lose 1 to 2 lbs per week for "healthy" weight loss. That's more crap based on old science and based on a non fat burning metabolism. Research, research, research yourself. And don't trust what any one says on a forum. Learn from up to date doctors. Not old B.S. outdated science and people that just re post what they heard from others here. Go on youtube and look up Dr. Eric Berg and Dr. Fung and Diet Doctor pages. I've lost 47 lbs in 77 days and have gained lean muscle mass while doing it and have more energy every day than I ever have in my life and I'm 44 years old. Body runs on pure fat burning every day. But again...don't take my word for it. Research it. Then do it.
Berg is a chiropractor, not an authority on nutrition. He is way out of his field of expertise and has run afoul of the law for his questionable practices in the past. Fung is a laughingstock amongst evidence-based researchers and his silly theories have been shot out of the sky numerous times by people who actually know something about physiology. Dietdoctor is a keto propaganda website so full of woo that it makes Dr. Oz look credible.
I'd agree with the advice to "research it" - but the above sources are not "research", they're ketovangelist propaganda. 99% of what you wrote in your post above is physiologically incorrect and does not accurately describe how the body works, nor how keto actually works.
Here's one of many sources which directly addresses Fung's drivel and counters it with actual, real, research-backed science: https://www.myoleanfitness.com/evidence-caloric-restriction/
LOL typical brain washed dribble from someone that hasn't lived it and done it. REAL SCIENCE IS DOING IT. Don't talk about it if you don't live it. I live it and you will see my journal pictures and not just that but you want more science. I have body composition imaging scan reports, blood and urine lab test results. That is science lol. Typical saying that when you "read" stuff you dismiss it but 10's of thousands of people living intermittent fasting keto adapted bodies are walking and living proof. You keep believing what you believe. And I'll live the reality lol.20 -
*Shrug* If the reality is that I've lost 103lbs in 16 months eating a varied emphatically non-keto diet and increasing my exercise, have had my health markers improve across the board, gone from a size 3X to a size 8 and from walking 2.8 mph to 3.5...
Bring on the non-Keto Kool-Aid!14 -
LOL there are not only two options. I never said that and that's also typical of a forum warrior to say lol. Everybody lives in their own body and can chose whatever way they want to lose, maintain weight, gain lean mass etc.. I am pointing out that some of the crap I read on this forum is utter outdated B.S. and EVERYTHING EVERY PIECE OF ADVISE given here should be researched and further than that. LIVE IT and see if the stuff is true or not.janejellyroll wrote: »PaulChasinDreams wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »nettiklive wrote: »Plenty of people are obese because they overeat. You can overeat for various reasons, ignoring hunger signals, portion sizes, too much calorie dense food. But not everyone who is not obese tracks calories even remotely. Some remain overweight, some average, and some thin. In fact, the slimmest people I know eat whatever they want without a second thought. And even most overweight people are know aren't just continuously gaining weight - those are usually the extreme obesity cases. Several slightly overweight women I know have stayed the same weight for years - they've gone up to it with less-than-perfect eating perhaps, but then they continue to eat an average intake, not lose and not gain. Those who end up losing are usually those who really put in a lot of work or make drastic changes, not simply eating 100-200 calories less a day.
This is interesting as I am going to split some hairs here ;-)
First of all, you called, because you mentioned "simply eating 100-200 calories less a day."
I draw your attention to my second year on MFP.
Paper deficit = 204 Cal a day.
Implicit deficit based on weight lost: 106 Cal a day.
Now. Having said that. I also draw your attention to two things:
That there IS a difference in how close Fitbit TDEE and Implicit TDEE tracked between when I was obese and when I got closer to normal weight. AND that the difference while appreciable is nevertheless NOT extreme.
It is my own observation that there is a definite degree of elasticity when eating at approximate maintenance. Sort of like pushing up or pushing down.
When I am "pushing up", I almost always see an increase in my "Fitbit" resting heart rate and faster nail (even facial hair) growth.
Trending down is almost always preceded by a reduction of my Fitbit resting heart rate and certainly no particular need to trim nails!
From highest to lowest the change has been as high as 15bpm (let's call it ranging from a low of 55 to a high of 70 bpm). Usually it is limited to a narrower swing of 6 to 8 bpm, swinging to up to 10 bpm when I apply 500 Cal deficits.
So compensatory changes take place and I am sure that for some people these will be less pronounced and for others they will be much more pronounced (see multiple discussions as to whether adaptive thermogenesis exists and whether its effects are substantial and/or permanent and to what degree)
But once that level of compensation is exhausted, a persistent application of a further deficit, or surplus will go on to produce results.
The difference is that as you said most people do not track. Therefore when their body compensates they go with the flow and adjust.
In other words they do NOT succeed in actually applying the average 200/100 Cal stimulus over a long enough period of time.
Yes, this kind of stuff was exactly what I meant. People on a deficit also tend to feel colder, have less energy etc. Of course the body is limited in just how much energy it could conserve that way, but it is something, so if your deficit is very small like those 100 calories, it could very well compensate for it.
If you don't believe that's the case, then answer this: WHY exactly do all those changes take place, like feeling colder, having slower nail and hair growth, less energy etc? Why does the body not just burn fat to keep all these things going as usual? Yet it doesn't. I think that shows that the fat-burning process isn't quite as straightforward as people here claim. And fat-burning alone is not efficient enough to provide for all of our energy needs, otherwise overweight people could survive with zero food until they reached their desired weight, yet they can't. Even increased hunger signals and our preference for rich, calorie-dense food are evolutionary mechanisms designed to conserve energy stores. So it's a bit shortsighted to claim that 'the body doesn't 'want' to do anything, it's all all your habits'. That's not to say you can't consciously override all these things but they are present as part of the body's evolutionary makeup.
Really sad that people with no clue about the science of fat burning and fat for energy are giving such horrible and B.S. advice on forums like this. Your body can and will and would rather live from running on energy from burning fat than that of glucose. Do some research on intermittent fasting and ketogenics and keto adaptation and see how successful and happy people are that follow those lifestyles ONLY running on burning fat for energy. And the whole caloric deficit rule is crap when it comes to having a keto adapted metabolism too. Burn as much fat as you want if you are in ketosis and intermittent fasting. The state our bodies should all be in while still taking in perfect nutrients every day. And build muscle at the same time if you want to. The way society is today and the crap that fills our groceries is the reason diabetes and obesity is the highest it's ever been in the world. Humans are not designed to be grazers eating processed, sugar filled garbage multiple times a day. Not any kind of food multiple times of day. Have you heard of evolution of species? How old is the human? Not old at all. We have not evolved past our hunter gatherer set up genetic make up of that kind of metabolism. We are designed to not eat all the time. Get your body into a fat burning metabolism and never look back. When you reach your fat % and lean body mass you want then adjust your macro's to where you stay that fit body ratio and you'll be set. And please don't listen to the B.S. all over some of these posts that say only lose 1 to 2 lbs per week for "healthy" weight loss. That's more crap based on old science and based on a non fat burning metabolism. Research, research, research yourself. And don't trust what any one says on a forum. Learn from up to date doctors. Not old B.S. outdated science and people that just re post what they heard from others here. Go on youtube and look up Dr. Eric Berg and Dr. Fung and Diet Doctor pages. I've lost 47 lbs in 77 days and have gained lean muscle mass while doing it and have more energy every day than I ever have in my life and I'm 44 years old. Body runs on pure fat burning every day. But again...don't take my word for it. Research it. Then do it.
Yes, those truly are the only two options available to us . . . go keto or eat garbage continuously throughout the day. No middle ground, no other options, we all must decide which of the two lifestyles we'll adopt. Quality 2nd post, my man.13 -
PrincessSlytherin wrote: »After reading everyone's input I feel a lot more confident moving forward. I am going to follow the advice given and tighten up on my logging and give myself some more time to adjust to my new routine. I guess it just gets scary when I am not seeing the results I expected, but it seems to be what this is. It's a waiting game, but now I can make some small adjustments to hopefully help myself reach my goal!
Sounds like a plan 3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K 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
- 421 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions