Is this a thing? (losing more when eating more calories)
Replies
-
I dont understand that comment about a protein in the body kicking in and preventing fat loss.
You used the 'biggest loser' contestants as examples. But surely if they lost weight in the first place (before gaining it back), then surely this is not relevant to them as otherwise they wouldnt have lost weight if they had some protein preventing fat loss?
"In a study of former contestants on a season of the weight-loss reality show The Biggest Loser, scientists found that years later, the contestants not only had gained back much or all of the weight they’d lost on the show, but also had far weaker metabolisms than most people their size. The contestants’ bodies had fought for years to regain the weight, contrary to the contestants’ efforts and wishes. No one was sure why."
"Along with a team of researchers, Ann Marie Schmidt, an endocrinologist at the New York University School of Medicine, has been unraveling the mystery. In a new study published today, Schmidt and her team have unlocked a molecular mechanism controlling weight gain and loss in mice: a protein that shuts down the animals’ ability to burn fat in times of bodily stress, including when dieting or overeating. This discovery might hold the key to understanding why it’s so hard for humans to lose weight, and even harder to keep it off."
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/07/weight-loss-rage-proteins/594073/
FWIW.
I've watched "My 600-pound Life", and it seems like many lose large amounts of weight when they stick to the program, even with minimal excercise.7 -
Sure, there's definitely more to it than just correctly estimating intake... I didn't mean to gloss over that. Energy balance is about everything the body does that impacts calories burned and everything we do that impacts calories consumed... and that can be a HUGE umbrella. Calories burned through exercise, calories burned through daily living, and calories consumed through eating/drinking isn't the entire equation, but it is 90% of it for 90% of people... which is why we always start there with these types of discussions.TallGent66 wrote: »I agree and disagree.
I've known many family members and friends who either miscalculate food quantities, leave out food, or cheat on almost every 'diet'. Many eat 50-75% of the programmed food quantities, and then add another 500-1500 calories on top of the program. Maybe they're good for 3-5 days, then they run to fast food, happy hour, or ice cream.
But its likely more complex than that when one adds in cardio, weights, etc. I stalled at 286-87, tall guy, big boned. MFP members told me to up my calorie intake (I was way under eating at 800 - 1,000 CPD, cucumber gonzo, little protein). So I upped my CPD to 1700-2100 (TDEE says I burn 2800 a day w/ no exercise), hiking, treading water, and just started light lifting 3 days a week. I lost 4-5 pounds, and then 2 back on. Technically, this shouldn't happen. I'm trying to figure it out.
I'm curious how biggest loser contestants (their situations, experiences, successes, failures, etc) relate to most of us. It's like me saying that Dwayne Johnson eats 5000 cals per day and is huge, so clearly I should to.TallGent66 wrote: »Last night I posted a new science article about a protein in the body that can kick in, and prevent fat loss. (In The Atlantic.) It was spurred by virtually all of The Biggest Losers contestants gaining all of their weight back, and more.
I'm not sure managing water weight is a wise strategy for weight loss. Understanding it, sure. But...TallGent66 wrote: »One new component I learned - for me -is that swimming promotes a larger water weight loss, short term. I don't recall the medical term. When we swim, blood surrounds core organs, probably to retain heat. "Our body senses this increase in blood volume in the chest and interprets it as too much blood/water. This sends signal to our kidneys to get rid of this excess water. Therefore our kidneys produce more urine and we have to pee."
10 -
TallGent66 wrote: »jjpptt2 No, it's not a thing. Science is a thing and there's no way around energy balance. What trips up many people is how incredibly inaccurate we can be in our efforts to calculate/track/manage/evaluate our own energy balance for the sake of weight control.
I agree and disagree.
I've known many family members and friends who either miscalculate food quantities, leave out food, or cheat on almost every 'diet'. Many eat 50-75% of the programmed food quantities, and then add another 500-1500 caliries on top of the program. Maybe they're good for 3-5 days, then they run to fast food, happy hour, or ice cream.
But its likely more complex than that when one adds in cardio, weights, etc. I stalled at 286-87, tall guy, big boned. MFP members told me to up my calorie intake (I was way under eating at 800 - 1,000 CPD, cucumber gonzo, little protein). So I upped my CPD to 1700-2100 (TDEE says I burn 2800 a day w/ no exercise), hiking, treading water, and just started light lifting 3 days a week. I lost 4-5 pounds, and then 2 back on. Technically, this shouldn't happen. I'm trying to figure it out.
Last night I posted a new science article about a protein in the body that can kick in, and prevent fat loss. (In The Atlantic.) It was spurred by virtually all of The Biggest Losers contestants gaining all of their weight back, and more.
One new component I learned - for me -is that swimming promotes a larger water weight loss, short term. I don't recall the medical term. When we swim, blood surrounds core organs, probably to retain heat. "Our body senses this increase in blood volume in the chest and interprets it as too much blood/water. This sends signal to our kidneys to get rid of this excess water. Therefore our kidneys produce more urine and we have to pee."
Here to learn. Break a leg!
To the bolded: That's just water weight fluctuation, not fat loss, so who cares?
Absent a serious medical problem that causes pathological water retention so requires medical management, people should not be trying to manipulate their water weight for "weight loss". That's not healthy, and water weight manipulation is fake weight loss. Fat loss is the thing we actually want.
Understanding our water retention (why it happens, how long it lasts, etc.) helps us manage our weight loss, by keeping us calm and on course during water-weight fluctuations. That's all.
well said. quoted for emphasis/agreement/reiteration.5 -
I dont understand that comment about a protein in the body kicking in and preventing fat loss.
You used the 'biggest loser' contestants as examples. But surely if they lost weight in the first place (before gaining it back), then surely this is not relevant to them as otherwise they wouldnt have lost weight if they had some protein preventing fat loss?
Unfortunately, the Biggest Loser study is often cited to support a lot of stuff it doesn't. Those contestants lost weight incredibly fast, by under-eating and over-exercising over several months. This most likely leads to some adaptive thermogenesis. In addition, they are then cut loose, and end up having difficulty sticking to the diet and exercise they learned while on the show. So they went from eating way too much to way too little, from being sedentary to aggressive exercise. All of this conspires to lower their TDEE dramatically and leave them with no plan, and weight gain is the result. Applying this to the average person makes no sense, other than perhaps a cautionary tale that losing weight aggressively has some definite downsides.
I agree that I see no connection between the Biggest Loser study and the study in the Guardian article. I think that's an example of a reporter either not understanding what they were reporting on, or purposefully using hyperbole and dubious references to pump up the article.12 -
he didn read with enough comprehension. Its a bout protein builded into cells of mice that prevents fat loss. Not protein intake that inhibit it.I dont understand that comment about a protein in the body kicking in and preventing fat loss.
You used the 'biggest loser' contestants as examples. But surely if they lost weight in the first place (before gaining it back), then surely this is not relevant to them as otherwise they wouldnt have lost weight if they had some protein preventing fat loss?
2 -
TallGent66 wrote: »I dont understand that comment about a protein in the body kicking in and preventing fat loss.
You used the 'biggest loser' contestants as examples. But surely if they lost weight in the first place (before gaining it back), then surely this is not relevant to them as otherwise they wouldnt have lost weight if they had some protein preventing fat loss?
"In a study of former contestants on a season of the weight-loss reality show The Biggest Loser, scientists found that years later, the contestants not only had gained back much or all of the weight they’d lost on the show, but also had far weaker metabolisms than most people their size. The contestants’ bodies had fought for years to regain the weight, contrary to the contestants’ efforts and wishes. No one was sure why."
"Along with a team of researchers, Ann Marie Schmidt, an endocrinologist at the New York University School of Medicine, has been unraveling the mystery. In a new study published today, Schmidt and her team have unlocked a molecular mechanism controlling weight gain and loss in mice: a protein that shuts down the animals’ ability to burn fat in times of bodily stress, including when dieting or overeating. This discovery might hold the key to understanding why it’s so hard for humans to lose weight, and even harder to keep it off."
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/07/weight-loss-rage-proteins/594073/
FWIW.
I've watched "My 600-pound Life", and it seems like many lose large amounts of weight when they stick to the program, even with minimal excercise.
Speaking of "My 600 Pound Life", I've watched about half of the current season and everyone who was either on a controlled diet in a hospital setting or have the mental wherewithal to be able to control their diet themselves lost weight as expected.
Many go through a period of denial in which they tell themselves that they are eating 1200 calories a day but the scale shows they are not. Dr. Now threatens them with death, and that gets through to many of them.
I think they should all get therapy and other tools much earlier in the process though. "Eat 1200 calories or you will die" isn't adequate as far as I'm concerned. It's like saying "Stop smoking or you will die" - while that may work for some, many need more tools than that.6 -
No, it's not a thing. Science is a thing and there's no way around energy balance. What trips up many people is how incredibly inaccurate we can be in our efforts to calculate/track/manage/evaluate our own energy balance for the sake of weight control.
Another thing that trips people up is that fluctuations in water weight and the weight of food passing through our digestive systems can easily, in the short term, mask the small amount of actual body mass (fat + lean body mass) that you can lose in a day or a week.4 -
I dont understand that comment about a protein in the body kicking in and preventing fat loss.
You used the 'biggest loser' contestants as examples. But surely if they lost weight in the first place (before gaining it back), then surely this is not relevant to them as otherwise they wouldnt have lost weight if they had some protein preventing fat loss?
Unfortunately, the Biggest Loser study is often cited to support a lot of stuff it doesn't. Those contestants lost weight incredibly fast, by under-eating and over-exercising over several months. This most likely leads to some adaptive thermogenesis. In addition, they are then cut loose, and end up having difficulty sticking to the diet and exercise they learned while on the show. So they went from eating way too much to way too little, from being sedentary to aggressive exercise. All of this conspires to lower their TDEE dramatically and leave them with no plan, and weight gain is the result. Applying this to the average person makes no sense, other than perhaps a cautionary tale that losing weight aggressively has some definite downsides.
I agree that I see no connection between the Biggest Loser study and the study in the Guardian article. I think that's an example of a reporter either not understanding what they were reporting on, or purposefully using hyperbole and dubious references to pump up the article.
Yeah. I have to say that any writer who attributes cognition, emotions, and goals to bodily functions -- as in the quoted passage form the Atlantic that has the body battling against the dieter to achieve its own separate goal of regaining the weight -- shouldn't be writing about science.7 -
Would be willing to bet the Biggest Losers who gained all the weight back did so not because of protein molecules and altered metabolisms, but because they got tired of their unrealistic and punitive eating patterns, ended up face down in a pepperoni pizza with extra cheese, and said I'll get back to the diet tomorrow...and tomorrow became next week and then next month and a year later, the weight was back and then some. Seems like a simpler explanation.17
-
Would be willing to bet the Biggest Losers who gained all the weight back did so not because of protein molecules and altered metabolisms, but because they got tired of their unrealistic and punitive eating patterns, ended up face down in a pepperoni pizza with extra cheese, and said I'll get back to the diet tomorrow...and tomorrow became next week and then next month and a year later, the weight was back and then some. Seems like a simpler explanation.
I definitely would. I remember seeing them eat their tiny meals from day 1, and WAY over exercise while being yelled at to keep going, even while several of them came close to (or did) faint from exhaustion. I would immediately go home and binge everything in sight. They didn't really pick up any healthy habits as far as I could tell. Nobody could go back to work full time and exercise like that, and I know from personal experience, eating low calories like that doesn't last very long.
5 -
Would be willing to bet the Biggest Losers who gained all the weight back did so not because of protein molecules and altered metabolisms, but because they got tired of their unrealistic and punitive eating patterns, ended up face down in a pepperoni pizza with extra cheese, and said I'll get back to the diet tomorrow...and tomorrow became next week and then next month and a year later, the weight was back and then some. Seems like a simpler explanation.
5 -
Not mentioned yet, but over-restricting often is combined with eating very little fat. Eating fat gets things moving in the digestive system. Eat more fat, and you're more likely to go to the loo. This could result in a 'weight loss'.3
-
Evil Hollywood? I only caught 1 or 2 episodes ... agreed, completely unrealistic excercise and eating models ... no way to replicate at home.
Could they be taught how to eat 2,000 CPD, at home, not eating chef-cooked meals? Shown how to excercise at home or the local gym, unsupervised?1 -
TallGent66 wrote: »Evil Hollywood? I only caught 1 or 2 episodes ... agreed, completely unrealistic excercise and eating models ... no way to replicate at home.
Could they be taught how to eat 2,000 CPD, at home, not eating chef-cooked meals? Shown how to excercise at home or the local gym, unsupervised?
Sure, but it would make for really boring TV for the viewers at home . . . and interfere with some such viewers' perception that weight loss inevitably requires unimaginably punitive measures in penance for one's previous sins of overeating. Short-circuiting your viewers' perception of powerlessness by introducing reality into reality TV . . . that isn't going to make some of them very happy, or keep watching.
Call me cynical . . . .
12 -
TallGent66 wrote: »Evil Hollywood? I only caught 1 or 2 episodes ... agreed, completely unrealistic excercise and eating models ... no way to replicate at home.
Could they be taught how to eat 2,000 CPD, at home, not eating chef-cooked meals? Shown how to excercise at home or the local gym, unsupervised?
Sure, but it would make for really boring TV for the viewers at home . . . and interfere with some such viewers' perception that weight loss inevitably requires unimaginably punitive measures in penance for one's previous sins of overeating. Short-circuiting your viewers' perception of powerlessness by introducing reality into reality TV . . . that isn't going to make some of them very happy, or keep watching.
Call me cynical . . . .
You mean like 90 Day Fiance? Where nerdy, aging Americans instantly fall in love with hot, or semi hot foreigners with tempers or severe attitudes, get married in 90 days, ... and then if blows up? Surprised?
No courtship. No reasonable expectations. No conflict resolution.2 -
TallGent66 wrote: »TallGent66 wrote: »Evil Hollywood? I only caught 1 or 2 episodes ... agreed, completely unrealistic excercise and eating models ... no way to replicate at home.
Could they be taught how to eat 2,000 CPD, at home, not eating chef-cooked meals? Shown how to excercise at home or the local gym, unsupervised?
Sure, but it would make for really boring TV for the viewers at home . . . and interfere with some such viewers' perception that weight loss inevitably requires unimaginably punitive measures in penance for one's previous sins of overeating. Short-circuiting your viewers' perception of powerlessness by introducing reality into reality TV . . . that isn't going to make some of them very happy, or keep watching.
Call me cynical . . . .
You mean like 90 Day Fiance? Where nerdy, aging Americans instantly fall in love with hot, or semi hot foreigners with tempers or severe attitudes, get married in 90 days, ... and then if blows up? Surprised?
No courtship. No reasonable expectations. No conflict resolution.
No chances of it ever working.
0 -
TallGent66 wrote: »TallGent66 wrote: »Evil Hollywood? I only caught 1 or 2 episodes ... agreed, completely unrealistic excercise and eating models ... no way to replicate at home.
Could they be taught how to eat 2,000 CPD, at home, not eating chef-cooked meals? Shown how to excercise at home or the local gym, unsupervised?
Sure, but it would make for really boring TV for the viewers at home . . . and interfere with some such viewers' perception that weight loss inevitably requires unimaginably punitive measures in penance for one's previous sins of overeating. Short-circuiting your viewers' perception of powerlessness by introducing reality into reality TV . . . that isn't going to make some of them very happy, or keep watching.
Call me cynical . . . .
You mean like 90 Day Fiance? here nerdy, aging Americans instantly fall in love with hot, or semi hot foreigners with tempers or severe attitudes, get married in 90 days, ... and then if blows up? Surprised?
No courtship. No reasonable expectations. No conflict resolution.
Hmm. I don't watch that, never heard of it. I don't watch Biggest Loser, either, though I've seen some episodes from its first seasons. Don't even own a working TV, and haven't for several years (and no, don't stream TV shows on other devices). It doesn't take much experience to believe the mass viewing audience would be bored by a TV show that showed people how to eat a sensible amount, and exercise in a sensible way.
Back in the day, I used to watch a PBS show (Zonya's Health Bites) that told people how to eat a sensible amount of healthy food, how to cook it, etc. . . . AFAIK, it didn't have a massive, commercial-network-style audience. Pretty good show, though.TallGent66 wrote: »Evil Hollywood? I only caught 1 or 2 episodes ... agreed, completely unrealistic excercise and eating models ... no way to replicate at home.
Could they be taught how to eat 2,000 CPD, at home, not eating chef-cooked meals? Shown how to excercise at home or the local gym, unsupervised?
0 -
TallGent66 wrote: »TallGent66 wrote: »Evil Hollywood? I only caught 1 or 2 episodes ... agreed, completely unrealistic excercise and eating models ... no way to replicate at home.
Could they be taught how to eat 2,000 CPD, at home, not eating chef-cooked meals? Shown how to excercise at home or the local gym, unsupervised?
Sure, but it would make for really boring TV for the viewers at home . . . and interfere with some such viewers' perception that weight loss inevitably requires unimaginably punitive measures in penance for one's previous sins of overeating. Short-circuiting your viewers' perception of powerlessness by introducing reality into reality TV . . . that isn't going to make some of them very happy, or keep watching.
Call me cynical . . . .
You mean like 90 Day Fiance? here nerdy, aging Americans instantly fall in love with hot, or semi hot foreigners with tempers or severe attitudes, get married in 90 days, ... and then if blows up? Surprised?
No courtship. No reasonable expectations. No conflict resolution.
Hmm. I don't watch that, never heard of it. I don't watch Biggest Loser, either, though I've seen some episodes from its first seasons. Don't even own a working TV, and haven't for several years (and no, don't stream TV shows on other devices). It doesn't take much experience to believe the mass viewing audience would be bored by a TV show that showed people how to eat a sensible amount, and exercise in a sensible way.
Back in the day, I used to watch a PBS show (Zonya's Health Bites) that told people how to eat a sensible amount of healthy food, how to cook it, etc. . . . AFAIK, it didn't have a massive, commercial-network-style audience. Pretty good show, though.TallGent66 wrote: »Evil Hollywood? I only caught 1 or 2 episodes ... agreed, completely unrealistic excercise and eating models ... no way to replicate at home.
Could they be taught how to eat 2,000 CPD, at home, not eating chef-cooked meals? Shown how to excercise at home or the local gym, unsupervised?
I have some old unbreakable dinnerware from the 70s in storage ... the bowls and cups are 50% smsller than what is used today.
I visited friends in Cologne, Germany years ago. We went to the movies, got popcorn. A littld paper tube like we had in the 60s... no extra butter, no jalapeno salt. About 1/20th of what is in our Tub.1 -
justanotherjenn wrote: »TallGent66 wrote: »TallGent66 wrote: »Evil Hollywood? I only caught 1 or 2 episodes ... agreed, completely unrealistic excercise and eating models ... no way to replicate at home.
Could they be taught how to eat 2,000 CPD, at home, not eating chef-cooked meals? Shown how to excercise at home or the local gym, unsupervised?
Sure, but it would make for really boring TV for the viewers at home . . . and interfere with some such viewers' perception that weight loss inevitably requires unimaginably punitive measures in penance for one's previous sins of overeating. Short-circuiting your viewers' perception of powerlessness by introducing reality into reality TV . . . that isn't going to make some of them very happy, or keep watching.
Call me cynical . . . .
You mean like 90 Day Fiance? Where nerdy, aging Americans instantly fall in love with hot, or semi hot foreigners with tempers or severe attitudes, get married in 90 days, ... and then if blows up? Surprised?
No courtship. No reasonable expectations. No conflict resolution.
No chances of it ever working.
There is one cute couple, she is from Central America, had a baby. An older white giy and his Asian bride seem happy.
No. Not practical.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 898 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions