Random Acts of Questioning
Replies
-
Hopefully I can get back to some serious exercise and earn an extra 200-300 calories which would boost me to 1800. At my age it’s more like declining vigor rather than increase. I think I’ll be in the 1400-1550 range at best.2
-
Hopefully I can get back to some serious exercise and earn an extra 200-300 calories which would boost me to 1800. At my age it’s more like declining vigor rather than increase. I think I’ll be in the 1400-1550 range at best.
That is one reason I love being in the pool a couple of hours four or five days a week….besides getting stronger and having more endurance, I can have a few more calories to eat!….I just can’t get in the water when it is so chilly outside!….1 -
Physical therapy seems to be helping. It’ll be at least 4-5 weeks and I’m hoping for some more permanent relief. I do miss the extra calories!3
-
It is not 500---that seems remarkably excessive. How would you be reacting about this discussion if the figure was 50 or 27 after a year?
There is some recovery and it doesn't continue forever at the maximum. Furthermore, methodological and other questions aside larger loser is an extreme that nobody here I believe advocates as a modus operandi
There is some disagreement if the recovery is complete or partial and under what conditions and very little (or at least not discovered by me) clear and compelling research establishing figures beyond that it exists to some degree and there is a recovery to some degree and that there's a potential for a small degree of differences. (And always the full recovery with regain option exists which may not be ideal 😹😹😹)
It doesn't mean you will never have chocolate that's where the advocacy of losing weight in similar methods to how you're planning to maintain comes into play.
You view your internal reality and isolation so it's not all grim even though ahead of time we tend to exacerbate our problems.
All this addresses AT and not your reality.
Your reality and figures are totally different thing. And there would have to be a lot of review before we accept as incomprehensible the labels you assign yourself versus the amount of movement and exercise you perform every day.
Your main incomprehension stems from the labels asigned to the figures, and not necessarily the actual numbers.
So starting from the beginning:
Quick answer: you already have some AT that you are perfectly comfortable living with. Numbers need reviewing 😹
Expanding
The population estimate is the population estimate, individuals vary and a standard deviation or two is unlikely but not impossible for any one individual.
I walk around in the 15 to 20,000 step range and did that from pretty early in my weight loss ramping up a bit as it became easier.
In my case this represents 2 to 3 hours of trying to be active and not sitting on my butt which is what I tend to do most of the rest of the day in front of a computer screen. Ok. I maybe try to inject some extra activity these days. And get up every hour and all that jazz. And my Mifflin activity multiplier is in the 1.93 range
I'll try to bring up some of my old numbers later. But evaluating against an outside estimate with all the potential issues this has (Fitbit) I would say I've shown a less than 5% drop over time.
What I DO see is that when I'm more sedentary Fitbit underestimates my calories out, and when I'm very active it overestimates.
My math is not good enough to come up with a model and the averages are what count.
And I'm not going to be less active because at peak activity I burn fewer than expected calories
I'm not active just for the calories and OVER TIME appetite seems to stabilize close to need when no longer eating at deliberate continuous deficit
I don't tend to overeat because I'm really hungry, right? I would not really gain weight if I did.
I tend to overeat because cookies taste really good and or because I'm annoyed at the world or tired and cold/miserable.
So to part of your question you ARE exhibiting some AT and are more efficient than you think and sitting
Perfectly satisfied with that degree of at and activity. Danger; neither you nor I can engage in this level of activity when injured or possibly reach Connie's or yooly's age.
So your body *is* (probably) less efficient yet you don't séem to mind currently 😹 It will deteriorate at an accelerated rate the more into normal weight you push Ugh ugh ugh I have to leave for an appointment and try to wrap my null brain into something thoughtful later.
2 -
Just to be clear, I have no intention of avoiding chocolate forever. I eat it while in deficit, and fully intend to carry on doing so in maintenance. My only 'rule' is that it must be GOOD chocolate (or have nuts in it!)
I, too, don't exercise for the calorie burn. I walk because I enjoy it and the dog gives me the evil eye if I don't. I cycle because it makes my face ache from grinning so much.
I hear you about not being able to maintain a high TDEE if injured or when older - I guess I'll have to cross those bridges when I come to them. I don't do massive amounts of exercise anyway - and not very high intensity - to minimise my reliance on the calorie burn from intentional exercise.
Lots to ponder on...2 -
I hate MFP. I've written two responses that made more sense and they have both disappeared. I will try to return to this later but right now I want to smash the screen. And I apologize for the response from earlier today where I can barely make out what I'm rambling about. Obviously not enough coffee and too much google dictation.3
-
TBH I think I'd be feeling pretty sanguine.It is not 500---that seems remarkably excessive. How would you be reacting about this discussion if the figure was 50 or 27 after a year?
Yep, fair assessment. It's not the numbers I can't get my head around, it's the fact that my numbers seems to equate closer to 'olympic athlete' level of activity rather than 'lightly active'. Over the past 183 days (6 months) I've averaged 5.2 miles of walking a day, at an average pace of 3.1 mph (which, according to the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine is the optimal fat-burning pace). So that's around 90-120 mins a day of walking. But that walking is predominantly on tarmac/pavement and relatively flat terrain, so I'm never out of breath. And that's my predominant exercise. I also cycle pretty regularly (on the turbo, off road on singletrack and forest fireroads, and on-road) but as we all know, cycling is about the most efficient form of exercise there is, so burns far fewer calories that one might imagine. Due to a shoulder injury I've also done ZERO cycling since 18th December, but eliminating those exercise calories hasn't impacted my TDEE at all (yet).Your reality and figures are totally different thing. And there would have to be a lot of review before we accept as incomprehensible the labels you assign yourself versus the amount of movement and exercise you perform every day.
Your main incomprehension stems from the labels asigned to the figures, and not necessarily the actual numbers.
The rest of my day is pretty indolent...
That's encouraging...I'll try to bring up some of my old numbers later. But evaluating against an outside estimate with all the potential issues this has (Fitbit) I would say I've shown a less than 5% drop over time.
And that's interesting! I don't have a FItbit, but I do have power-meters on all my bikes which might over-estimate my calorie burn.What I DO see is that when I'm more sedentary Fitbit underestimates my calories out, and when I'm very active it overestimates.1 -
Fat burn vs other burn during exercise of way less relevance especially to stored fat loss as compared to total quantity of calories burned over the course of the complete day.
Overall the more calories you use the more stored fat you will lose subject to the same intake regardless of the substrate that was directly utilized during the exercise. So optimizing for substrate is sub-optimal. In fact, burning carbs that have to be stored again is more energy intensive and wasteful than efficiently burning fat
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
8Km is what, just about 10K steps for you? That puts you as ~active in the 1.6x range by itself. At 12K to 13.5K you're verging towards 1.7x or 1.8x (for most people who are tracking close to average blah blah yada yada)
A power meter is an impartial arbiter. It is literally a power meter. It measures energy. Subject to normal measurement error and variance... it, how should I put it, measures energy spent! So it CAN'T overestimate what you've put out because that's what it measuring, and the only source of that energy is... YOU!
So you've spent that energy. TIMES A CONVERSION FACTOR because bio-chemical power ain't electricity.
And that's where the issues start because in reality only about 25% of the calories you're burning make it to the pedals. The rest become heat. And the more efficient you are, the less you "waste" on generating heat, and thus you burn fewer calories for the power levels you generate.
But the power your meter measured has been generated as measured.
https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/how-accurate-is-that-calorie-reading/
How can eliminating exercise not reduce your total daily expenditure ABSENT compensation by increasing other activity?
Be a confident olympic athlete.
For some reason I've had stuck in my head a multiplier in the 1.93 to 1.97 range for myself.
And I just confirmed it by using third year of MFP (a unique combination of both a complete and a relatively weight stable year for me while I was still logging food with extreme diligence and with a sub 3lb yearly decrease). Using lowest age and highest weight I still get a multiplier of just over 1.9 based on observed weight change results and subject to logging quality.
ONLY activity was walking, averaging 19104 steps or about 13.5 to 13.75km per day for the year. Divergence from expected TDEE was 4.77% lower than expected.
1 -
I average about 15,100 steps a day according to my iPhone, so that's obviously the steps from the actual 'walks' and other steps as I go about my daily activities. Not that I'm welded to my phone, but I guess it's often in the back pocket of my jeans. I think the iPhone overestimates steps slightly, but not by a massive margin. Last week on one of my walks I physically counted my steps as I walked - 5 rounds of 1000 paces gave me results of 1045, 1042, 1057, 1023 and 1041 on the steps monitor on my iPhone 'health' app. So not accurate, but not a million miles overestimating.
I guess I've been more NEAT mindful since taking the month off the bike. And my figures do tend to suggest that I burn quite a few NEAT calories as a matter of course, so being extra-NEAT mindful may be enough to compensate for the lack of cycling. E.g. when cycling I don't do stretches when waiting for the kettle to boil, but that's what I've been doing recently, as well as using the 'Stand Up' app to remind me to get up and move around for 5 minutes every hour.2 -
Hence Olympic athlete 😹
Note that the step to km conversion is extremely suspect and only outside would reliably count based on stride. Stride varies with speed and terrain
But averages hide a lot of non biased inaccuracies as errors offset.
And long term data are long term data and thus reflective of one's reality1 -
Yeah, I take the step to km conversion with a large grain of salt. My distances and time duration are taken directly from Strava which measures distance and gradient via GPS (and I also double-checked the distances on Mapometer). It's only trend that I'm really focused on anyway....
Olympian it is then!
3 -
Mapometer? 😹😂 Sounds like something to do with your μάπα which would be Greek for ta gueule 😹😂😘
Ok, technically your face not your mouth but don't spoil it for me by introducing an Italian mappa! 🤣1 -
psychod787 wrote: »Can we compensate for this AT? I think yes, most of the AT does not come from RMR, but from skeletal muscle fuel efficiency. Basically the muscle burn less energy than would be predicted for a certain motion. One promising way of counter acting it is resistance training. Seems to help counteract this. The next is a higher protein diet while losing and after. Some research shows that RMR stays "normal" after weight loss with a higher protein diet. Walking also might help counteract some of the issues. There might be sensors in the long bones that help our brains determine our size, so walking, or standing might help that as well. As far as the other on hunger and how I think losing weight is best, I will post later.
Dalon I would seriously like to see the rest of it when you get a chance.
RMR AT is the hardest to compensate for. Even if you try to remember to tap your leg. or get up. or this or that or the other. You can't elevate your core temp.
BUT. Dalon help out if I am stating "untruth":
You can bike further, harder, stronger. Even if your super trained and weight reduced thigh muscles are not burning as much as those of a person who had fully fuelled their biking all along.
AND. NOVEL impetus still plays in at a full(er) value. So if you stop biking daily and start rowing for a bit instead and then get back into biking you will have lost some of the adaptation.
BUT
Again.
There is no reason not to try and minimize it in the first place, is there?
AND...
While being respectful and not "silly", and not giving any advantages you can keep for yourself away, let's not give AT infinite power.
It is A concern. But not the end all.
For many of us the problem is not the size of a couple of extra ghirardelli squares a day. The problem is dealing with half jars of nutellas plus fixing if you know what I mean Mr Bean!
And that's hunger plus emotional work and/or coping strategies and techniques.
From what I have read Alec, it does not matter what kind of exercise one does. The adaptation is more of an adaption to a certain calorie burn. The body starts pulling energy being used in "non-essential" body processes. Maybe one of the reasons we see inflammation go down when someone becomes more active. We see evidence of this in athletes. Women who train hard, and men who get down to elite levels of body fat, often see their reproductive hormones plummet. Reproduction is non-essential in times of over stress and lack of available calories. It could also explain why tribes like the Hadza, have very similar TDEE's of a semi-sedentary westerner, even when body comp is taken into account. Those hunter gathers walk 14k+ steps a day. Humans are very efficient at not burning calories. Probably one of the reasons for our success over the years. Heck, even our bipedal motion is more energy efficient than quadrupeds. It seems like there is a curve to energy burn versus a strait line. You never quit burning more energy for more activity, but there is an extreme drop off at a certain point.
As far as how I seen weight loss for the LONG term. I personally think that whatever works for someone is best for them. Me? I prefer to try and work with my hunger and satiety centers. I, for years, had to push away from the table still being very hungry. Most likely due to my want to maintain BF that was non maintainable for my genetic and weight history. As much as it pains me to say it, I think many of us will pay a price for being obese for a long time. So now, I eat a lower energy dense, less processed, higher fiber and protein, lower added sugar and fat, diet. This is allowing me to eat to fullness and seemly to maintain my weight. Maybe a slight trend up, but I still think I have a few pounds to go. The thought of having to live ravenous again is one I will not bare.Bella_Figura wrote: »Right, my mind is churning all this over.
Just for clarity, I'll explain what I think I understand, so that I can be corrected if I'm wrong. This will be long, so for those who can't be bothered to plough through my verbosity, I'll summarise in one sentence at the end.
The long, verbose version:
Identical twins Ada and Bella are separated at birth, and Ada is adopted by the Outdoorsy-Adventurer family, while Bella is adopted by the Couch-Potato family. Ada spends her infancy, childhood and youth kayaking down the Amazon, trekking in the Himalayas, mountain-biking across Australia, and dog-sledding to the poles. Food is fuel. Dieting never crosses her mind. This behaviour continues into adulthood, and Ada maintains her lean physique and her splendid metabolism.
Bella spends her infancy, childhood and youth leisure hours sitting on a sofa reading and watching telly. She and her family get great joy and pleasure from their shared buckets of KFC and tins of Quality Street. They create happy memories from shared feasts and indulgent treats. Food is ever-present and has great emotional resonance. Exercise is shunned. Periodically Bella and her family try to lose some excess weight, but the pull of food is too strong. This behaviour continues into adulthood, and Bella gets larger and larger despite her efforts to diet. However, after one particularly determined episode of weight management, Bella finally reaches a healthy weight.
At this point, Ada and the newly-slim Bella are joyfully re-united and decide to live together for what remains of their lives. They're inseparable, and Bella adopts Ada's outdoorsy lifestyle. They do everything together. Both weigh 125 lbs.
Right from the get-go, they notice some differences. They spend every waking minute together, doing identical activity and ingesting exactly the same food and drink, but Ada's weight remains stable while Bella's weight begins to creep upwards. Furthermore, Ada never seems to think about food, but Bella thinks about it all the time, almost to the point of obsession. She feels constantly hungry, and there's temptation everywhere. At mealtimes, though she stops eating at the same time as Ada, she never feels satiated. It's a constant battle not to sneak off and eat a bag of donuts. She also feels constantly cold and tired.
After some months of experimentation, they calculate that for Bella's weight to remain stable, she needs to eat 500 calories/day fewer than Ada for doing identical activity....and this will be the case for the rest of their lives. And it's likely that she'll always feel more hungry, more tempted, more cold, more tired and less satiated than Ada.
"I can do it!" says Bella, grimly.
"I'll support you!" says Ada, guiltily, wondering if this means she'll never be able to have a bar of chocolate ever again, in case it sends Bella off into a tailspin.
The end....
1 line summary:
For the rest of my life I'll most likely need to live on several hundred calories a day fewer than someone of the same age/height/weight/gender/activity level who has never had a weight problem, and compared to that person I'll also feel more hungry, cold and tired, and less satiated. Forever and Ever. Amen.
Have I understood that right?
If I HAVE understood that right, how does that square with my experience to this point?
To date, I've lost 65lbs, which though not a HUGE sum, is still a pretty hefty amount of weight (31% of my starting body weight).
So shouldn't I have expected this metabolic slow-down to have started already?
Instead, my TDEE is pretty stable...Using SailRabbit to calculate my RMR, depending on which model is used, my RMR theoretically ranges from 1,190 to 1,460 and my TDEE theoretically ranges from 1,695 to 2,080 for my standard activity level (Light jogging or walking 5-7 days per week).
However, at 2,162 cals/day, my TDEE is higher even than that calculated by Cunningham, and hundreds higher if using Mifflin St Jeor, which is widely considered the most accurate estimate.
Against Mifflin St Jeor, my TDEE multiplier is 1.8, i.e. somewhere between 'Hard Labourer' and 'Professional/Olympic Athlete'.
It just doesn't make sense!
When I type my GOAL weight into SailRabbit and just take Mifflin St Jeor as the estimator, using 'hard laborour' as the activity level gives me a TDEE of around 1,869.
I could be wrong, but I think I could live long-term on 1,869 calories a day if I was mindful, motivated and careful to include enough protein and fibre. I think folks like Yooly would think they'd died and gone to heaven if they had a long-term maintenance calorie budget to 1,869.
But the theory of AT suggests I won't have 1,869, right? I may have closer to 1,500... (i.e. my current deficit budget).
But if the theory of AT's true (and I see no reason to disbelieve it)...why am I still losing about 1.48 lbs/week on a calorie budget of 1,500 calories, despite having lost a third of my body weight? Why is my body still being so efficient at burning calories? And will it stop being so efficient (pound for pound) if I push on to goal?
That's what I'm struggling to get my head around....
This is probably accurate. The lady in question might always be a little bit more food focused and "hungry" eating the same diet as her never obese twin. Its not fair, but its probably reality. The sins of our past, will often haunt us into the future. She may have to maintain a slightly higher body fat level to be "normal" living the same lifestyle. Or, she can live a different lifestyle that might help her maintain that "desired" weight she wants. Either decision is ok, but its up to her.
*edit* I would like to add something to the topic of AT. Yes, AT is most likely real, I personally think the evidence for length of weight loss process matters little. Especially in the long term. There are very few studies on the issue. I would also add, does AT really matter? The evidence, so far, does not show that people with "slower" RMR lose less weight and are less likely to maintain it. It shows that adherence to treatment is the greatest indicator for success. Also, does AT even matter if one able to lose weight and maintain it and they are not hungry "most" of the time?1 -
I am amazed at the level of study and scientific analysis you all have done on the topic of loss and maintainability. Positively dazzled!
However at my advanced age I’m choosing not to think long term and charting and graphing. I’ll be good to be successful day to day. Cause who know about tomorrow? You youngins can do the math. 🤓3 -
I am amazed at the level of study and scientific analysis you all have done on the topic of loss and maintainability. Positively dazzled!
However at my advanced age I’m choosing not to think long term and charting and graphing. I’ll be good to be successful day to day. Cause who know about tomorrow? You youngins can do the math. 🤓
I guess its a biproduct of being miserable for years and a slightly neurotic personality that being that way made me. I used to worry about how many calories I got to eat in a day. I no longer look at it in this way. I look at it like, is this food going to fill me up and keep from being "overly" hungry? Yeah, a bit of a 180 from the guy who used to weigh his broccoli to the gram. Humans are not very good at judging how much we eat. Now, those who weigh, measure and record are better at it, but probably still a a 10% or more margin of error. For me, eating certain food items is reserved for "special" occasions. Birthdays, holidays, ect. This has taken some of the neuroticism out of daily life for me. Allowing me to focus on what is important to me. I am willing to maintain a slightly higher BW than I would like to. For me, its not about the quantity of life, its about the quality. I mean some extra quality life would be nice though. Some people would say someone with grey hair has lived a long life. I would say maybe. Grey hair just means one has existed for a long time, not LIVED for a long time. JMHO2 -
@psychod787 Dalon, Bella is questioning previous advice to slow down as she approaches goal and not to continue applying effective deficits in the 800 Cal per day range well into normal weight. And is considering AT as a primary reason.
I think there is a slight misinterpretation (mis-statement) as to reasons and speed adjustments discussed.
Side effects such as AT, lean mass preservation/growth, food ideations associated with deficits, etc, are expected to increase as excess fat becomes less available.
This doesn't mean go from -800 to -150 right away, but it does imply slowly scaling down and not necessarily continuing to chase the pretty intense 2lb and 1.5+lbs a week targets. Bella's average as far as I recall is above 1.6lbs a week.
Hormonal rebound at maintenance is part of it. And the only thing **I** know to counteract that is TIME and minimizing it in the first place.
Thus to my mind a focus on loss (albeit very slow and, possibly, failing to lose; but, hopefully, not regaining) is a GOOD thing at the tail end of loss instead of switching directly from I am losing 1.5lbs to now I am maintaining.
Bella, as a comparison, my reality (subject to averages hiding a lot as you well know) was that I went just about -50 the first year (pre MFP), with about 6 months of -860 deficits which I found non sustainable but was impacted by no focus on protein or fiber and or food choices such as "things people eat on a diet such as subway sandwiches and muffins instead of fatty bacon!". This was followed by -72.5 my first year of MFP, -11.1 second year of MFP, and -2.7 / maintenance on third year on MFP (fourth year overall). Effective deficits for various time periods were -860 for 6 months, -695 for 12 months, -106 for 12 months, and -26 for 12 months.
The other reason Bella I've given for slowing down near goal and drawing out the proverbial last 10 lbs is a focus and emphasis on slower movement and flattening the curve. Reducing the amplitude of weight change. The slower the ups and downs are the easier on the body AND give you more time at a lower weight to embed lifestyle that promotes the retention of the lower weight.
Large ups and downs as is often seen and discussed by our very own people are hard both on mind and body.
I used to be incredibly concerned about AT and, in the past, it has contributed to weight regain. In particular the core temperature reduction generated by very low calories-in and very large (relative) amounts of calories out, even resulting in a diagnosis of Reynaud's with the doctors seeing someone in the 230lb range and not thinking of weight loss and large deficits as the reason.
Certainly at the tail end of rapid weight loss I was showing SOME symptoms of that (but not as many as in past instances) and they most certainly resolved over the five years I circulated in the 153.7 to 156.9 range.
But, regardless of knowledge or success, and in spite of a very successful (and slow) reduction from ~155 in February to ~151 in July over the first lock down. Increased family contact and aggravation just post the mere 4lb weight loss together with slightly looser logging = utterly classic yo-yo! "Ballooning" to me hitting the 155s by September 2020 (just a couple of months), and finding myself in the 157's by december, and having to make some effort to not break the 160 panic ceiling over next 12 months.
So, it is not all bad. In fact FAR from it. It is incredibly gratifying to be ABLE TO DO THINGS. But it is not by total coincidence that we've found ourselves needing to lose weight and the hamster management is NOT fire and forget.
Thus, most if not all my viewpoint boils down to "maximizing time doing weight management promoting things and being at desired weight" and engineering obstacles to regain.
OK. Off to make phone calls. 2 -
I know, I know that active management is very important for the long term. But when you’re pushing 75 this year long term is not guaranteed. So I’ll stick with where am I today, where do I want to be tomorrow and how does next week look? Can’t spend precious time sweating about the next five years because seriously?3
-
@psychod787 Dalon, Bella is questioning previous advice to slow down as she approaches goal and not to continue applying effective deficits in the 800 Cal per day range well into normal weight. And is considering AT as a primary reason.
I think there is a slight misinterpretation (mis-statement) as to reasons and speed adjustments discussed.
Side effects such as AT, lean mass preservation/growth, food ideations associated with deficits, etc, are expected to increase as excess fat becomes less available.
This doesn't mean go from -800 to -150 right away, but it does imply slowly scaling down and not necessarily continuing to chase the pretty intense 2lb and 1.5+lbs a week targets. Bella's average as far as I recall is above 1.6lbs a week.
Hormonal rebound at maintenance is part of it. And the only thing **I** know to counteract that is TIME and minimizing it in the first place.
Thus to my mind a focus on loss (albeit very slow and, possibly, failing to lose; but, hopefully, not regaining) is a GOOD thing at the tail end of loss instead of switching directly from I am losing 1.5lbs to now I am maintaining.
Bella, as a comparison, my reality (subject to averages hiding a lot as you well know) was that I went just about -50 the first year (pre MFP), with about 6 months of -860 deficits which I found non sustainable but was impacted by no focus on protein or fiber and or food choices such as "things people eat on a diet such as subway sandwiches and muffins instead of fatty bacon!". This was followed by -72.5 my first year of MFP, -11.1 second year of MFP, and -2.7 / maintenance on third year on MFP (fourth year overall). Effective deficits for various time periods were -860 for 6 months, -695 for 12 months, -106 for 12 months, and -26 for 12 months.
The other reason Bella I've given for slowing down near goal and drawing out the proverbial last 10 lbs is a focus and emphasis on slower movement and flattening the curve. Reducing the amplitude of weight change. The slower the ups and downs are the easier on the body AND give you more time at a lower weight to embed lifestyle that promotes the retention of the lower weight.
Large ups and downs as is often seen and discussed by our very own people are hard both on mind and body.
I used to be incredibly concerned about AT and, in the past, it has contributed to weight regain. In particular the core temperature reduction generated by very low calories-in and very large (relative) amounts of calories out, even resulting in a diagnosis of Reynaud's with the doctors seeing someone in the 230lb range and not thinking of weight loss and large deficits as the reason.
Certainly at the tail end of rapid weight loss I was showing SOME symptoms of that (but not as many as in past instances) and they most certainly resolved over the five years I circulated in the 153.7 to 156.9 range.
But, regardless of knowledge or success, and in spite of a very successful (and slow) reduction from ~155 in February to ~151 in July over the first lock down. Increased family contact and aggravation just post the mere 4lb weight loss together with slightly looser logging = utterly classic yo-yo! "Ballooning" to me hitting the 155s by September 2020 (just a couple of months), and finding myself in the 157's by december, and having to make some effort to not break the 160 panic ceiling over next 12 months.
So, it is not all bad. In fact FAR from it. It is incredibly gratifying to be ABLE TO DO THINGS. But it is not by total coincidence that we've found ourselves needing to lose weight and the hamster management is NOT fire and forget.
Thus, most if not all my viewpoint boils down to "maximizing time doing weight management promoting things and being at desired weight" and engineering obstacles to regain.
OK. Off to make phone calls.
Well Alec, nothing wrong with having hamsters, in fact, I have damn ferrets! The problem for me is, I can't let the little fury *kitten* run free, or they begin to take over my life. The problem with even addressing the subject of AT for me is, there are multiple models, that have been supported by different studies. Figure two of the most prominent as the static vs spring models. Deciding which one is right, or maybe both right, its just too much for most people. If I were coaching @Bella_Figura, I would ask what the last 10lbs means to her? How are her energy levels? Hunger levels? Sex drive? Does she feel overly restricted? Urge to binge? Does she feel she has to "over" exercise to maintain this caloric intake? Things of this nature. From personal experience, most of the AT issues I incurred, when I was at my lowest BF, have continued to remiss, as I push into my "settling" range for the lifestyle I am living. I would suggest to Bella to find a lifestyle, calorie target, and body weight, that makes many of the questions I asked above manageable. Not to concern herself with AT and rates of loss. I still think that one will come to a more normalized body weight according to lifestyle, genetics, and weight history, that is manageable. Control your hunger, both physical and psychological, and one is far more likely to control weight issues.2 -
@Yoolypr I mean dad is 82, and not because he takes care of himself! CCCGG's mom is 91, your mom you said was in her 90's, right? Lillibet in the UK is 96... so... I wouldn't bet against you swinging a random walker at my posts 10 years from now!
Plus long term? Have you seen how fast cars can move? Exactly!
Humans plan. Higher powers laugh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centenarian#Centenarian_populations_by_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_living_centenarians
2 -
psychod787 wrote: »Control your hunger, both physical and psychological, and one is far more likely to control weight issues.
YES.
Now the burning question is... HOW to best setup so as to achieve that! 4
