New to the site, joined after seeing it in many Google searches

Your absolute biggest highest priority is to contain the regain and spend time lots of time at the lowest weight you can hold and this is much more important than pushing for additional loss. Even thought to be honest, pushing for additional loss may be a mechanism to maintain for a couple of years at your current weight

The cold is a good indication that some adaptive thermogenesis may have taken place. If you need to cut down on your total time that you're walking, try to institute the famous few minutes of moving every hour as that may help you reduce the cold that you're feeling

Really there are only two ways to fix this that I know about. One that is guaranteed to fix it is called weight regain and is probably not what you want! The other is rear guard action show hormones and body stabilize.

I haven't talked to my friend @psychod787 for a while. He successfully navigated those Waters with very controlled regain and heavy lifting and is looking even more awesome at his current weight then he ever did at the peak or should let you bottom of his loss!

You can't really deviate too too far and too fast from your method of loss!

So you had a wake up call. But I would caution that you want to implement small not large deficits and you want to stall for time

Weight management is not going away for you. You want to be bringing up this conversation to me 5 years from now when you're still within 5 or 10 lb of where you're at today.

Just an opinion obviously. But your health benefit is the gap between 150 and 220. The 135 to 150 is nice as an aspiration.... Heck my weight goal is always 3 pounds less than what I am today. But the true fight is to resolve the unwanted parts of weight loss while preserving all of the benefits!!!!

And unfortunately I don't know if anything other than time that can do that.

Some general tricks that may or may not have any effect whatsoever: the moving every hour instead of having long periods of total in activity. Consider also a weighted vest can't remember where but wearing one where it would not impact your joints for example even seated may trigger some weird thingy... hey I did put this in the off the Wall tricks without any particular support section in no way I might claiming it is not total BS 🤷🏻‍♂️

eleng0413 wrote: »

snowflake954 wrote: »

You are at a point where you need to evaluate a few things. First, you successfully lost a great deal of weight. That's wonderful and you want to maintain. Think of how you lost it. Can you keep eating like that forever? If not, the same question will always pop up--how to manage carbs? Your weight loss did not teach you that. If you foresee a future eating some carbs, then you have to buckle down and slowly add a few in and stablize yourself. Yes, maintain for awhile, that's a whole other skill that many people lack. You have to work at it and study yourself and try a few things to find what works. Once you can hold that weight within a 5 lb range, then think about a small deficit.

The above posters are great. Listen to them.

It doesn't seem like there are many alternatives, though. I might try to do the low carb diet again but eat a cheat meal only two days a week. The nutritionist who started me on it mentioned that I'm going to have to watch what I eat for life if I want to stay a certain size. Also, in order to do that I have to stay on the diet. I'm not good at maintaining my weight at all.

I think the weight loss did help teach me a little bit, because I eat less carbs now than I used to. Before, I'd have unlimited amounts for every meal. Now I try to eat smaller portions (5-6 oz) and limit it to only four times a week or so. I was able to maintain the same weight (140-145) for a year or two.

Thanks for the help!

What Ann said^^^^. I'm going to add something. I live in Italy, people are skinny and have a carb heavy diet. It's the calories.

Another thought. Years ago I went to a dietician who was renting space in my BIL's office (he's a cardiologist). She had me eliminating many foods and adding many nutrients in pill form. It was expensive and unsustainable. I lost 25 lbs. BUT then I gained it back. I then found MFP 8 years ago and lost the same 25 in a much easier way. I learned a great deal about nutrition and dieting. I told my husband "But why didn't the dietician explain all this and make it easier"? He just gave me that "Are you really clueless" looks and said "Because, she needs to be the expert. She knows you'll gain it back and go back to her because it worked. It's just smart business". The idea is to keep you confused and dependent. Don't be that person--educate yourself. Follow the boards on here. There is a wealth of knowledge. If you don't like low-carb, don't do it.

eleng0413 wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

eleng0413 wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

"My nutritionist suggested that I eat a normal breakfast and lunch, but eat two smaller snack-type meals for dinner (ex. a protein bar with two tablespoons of peanut butter and carrots for one)."

That sounds an absolutely awful way to force yourself to eat!
No idea what eating lessons for life could possibly come from that.
And for short term weight loss tablespoons of PB must be one of the most commonly under-estimated calorie bombs!
Beware the term Nutritionist can mean very, very little in terms of knowledge, training or qualifications.

I think she doesn't know what to do with me anymore. Because the low carb diet made me cold, she suggested this snack-type pattern in order to lose weight again. Prior to this new snack dinner, I was doing a normal breakfast, lunch, and dinner but with one such snack before dinner. I'm currently eating two tablespoons of peanut butter with oatmeal and 6 oz of blueberries for breakfast. They told me that peanut butter is a good source of protein, and it does seem to keep me full. They've emailed me a special chart on the snacks I should eat. There are other alternatives, like fruit and cheese. Or an open-faced whole wheat sandwich with cream cheese and 1 oz deli meat. I know that some people only eat two meals a day in order to maintain their weight.

There's a PA I've seen at my primary care office. Even he follows low carb. He did mention most of it has to do with what I eat. He's also brought up stuff like intermittent fasting.

Honestly, it is very very difficult for me. I've read that most celebs also do a low carb diet and pretty much just eat chicken or fish and veggies every meal for lunch and dinner. I can't stand eating the same thing over and over. They get a cheat meal every ten days.

I wanted to switch providers, but even in LA County there are not many nutritionists that are covered through my insurance.

No, peanut butter is not a good protein source. Very not. Pretty terrible, in fact. It's a wonderful fat source (mono- and polyunsaturated fats, types which many of us under-consume). Fat is calorie dense. My brand of protein (just peanuts and salt) has 8 grams of protein in 190 calories (2 tablespoon/33g serving), and it's not worse than average. The protein accounts for about 32 calories in the peanut butter. The fat, 16 grams per serving, is around 144 of the calories.

If your nutritionist says peanut butter is a good protein source, fire your nutritionist. S/he doesn't have a clue. (If you're sated by fats, peanut butter may be filling and still worth eating. If you're sated by protein - many people are, but not everyone - consider using peanut butter powder instead of protein in your oatmeal, or a dollop of plain nonfat Greek yogurt (unless you medically can't tolerate dairy), or something that actually is a good protein source).

I'm going to be frank. I'm not trying to be rude, but I am trying to be clear. I think you're following too many popularized health/fitness blogs and such, and believing what amounts to publicity/marketing. For sure, it doesn't matter what celebrities' publicists claim the celebrities do. It's useless non-information.

In fact, for weight loss, it doesn't directly matter how many times per day you eat, the relative size of the meals, or even the nutrients in those meals. (Those may matter indirectly for feeling full, so you can stick to reasonable calories; or they may affect energy level, so you are more energetic or more fatigued so burn more or fewer calories in daily life.)

Both satiation (feeling full) and energy level are somewhat individualized, i.e., you can figure out what works best for you by experimenting with a modified routine for a few days, see what happens to appetite and energy.

Directly, what matters for weight loss is how many calories you eat, and how many you burn (from a combination of merely being alive; plus daily life activities such as work and home chores; and intentional exercise).

It doesn't even matter whether you count the calories or not, it's the calories that affect weight directly.

Some people lose weight by finding a really satisfying, energizing eating pattern (timing and nutrition), one that automagically results in their getting appropriate calories, so they can manage their weight without counting calories. Some people find it easier to count calories. It's just a tool.

Eventually, some calorie-counters find that eating pattern that lets them stop counting. Some of us keep counting. (I'll soon be in year 7 of counting, and am in year 6+ of staying a healthy weight, after previous decades of overweight/obesity.)

You don't need to do some exotic diet. If you want to calorie count, you can simply get a calorie goal, log what you eat (what you want to eat), then review/revise your eating to dial in your calorie goal and decent nutrition while feeling full and energetic. You then test-drive the calorie goal for 4-6 weeks (whole menstrual cycles for an adult female), look at average weekly results, and adjust intake if needed to lose at a sensibly moderate rate. (BTW, being cold can be a sign of trying to lose too fast or of losing steadily for too long; and losing too fast/long can add water weight that hides fat loss on the scale.)

If that kind of "remodel your eating" approach appeals to you, there's more about it in this thread:

https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10636388/free-customized-personal-weight-loss-eating-plan-not-spam-or-mlm/p1

That's not a universally perfect route, but it's a general route I and some others here have used to succeed.

No matter how you go about it, I think you want to find a way of eating (timing, food choices) that keeps you personally reasonably full/satisfied, energetic, and well-nourished; results in a reasonably healthy body weight; and involves eating foods you personally find tasty, affordable, and practical.

In some ways, all these trendy diets and tricksy schedules/rules can be a distraction from that basic idea.

You know you (preferences, satiation, practicality) better than anyone else does. Nutrition, while more generic, isn't all that tough. You can find a route that will work, if you work at it, I believe.

The only reason I pointed the celebrity diets out is because I wanted to make a point in saying that they have to eat the exact same low carb meals daily just to stay fit. That is pretty extreme, and I probably would never do it.

You're missing my point. The celebrity diets you're reading about are what some celebrities' publicist thought would look good in print. We have no idea how those people actually eat in real life. The "celebrity diets" - especially if the celebrity has a book out, or is repping a famous diet plan/trainer - are pure marketing nonsense. It's non-information. Ignore it.

I'd observe that when I see extensive candid photo spreads of high-level celebrity events, plenty of those slim, toned celebs look pretty drunk. I guess it was their cheat day?

Think about this. You know you can't eat the way the publicists say the celebs eat, you don't know how the celebs actually eat (even their Twitter/IG/etc. feeds are managed by publicists, generally). It's useless non-information.

IMO, a better thought: Hang out here for a while, see how successful average people - many of whom are actually being honest! - eat. Some follow trendy named diets, some don't. Notice who lasts, notice who's long-term successful (stays at a healthy weight). Also notice who struggles, freaks out, and why. Learn stuff from others, both what to try and what to avoid.

If you need to look at publicity stuff, for heaven's sake look at something like the National Weight Control Registry: Research on real people who have long term success at weight management.

http://www.nwcr.ws/

Thank you for the information though. I used to eat out a lot and now went down to three or four days a week. The post you linked doesn't mention exercise. Also, do you eat at home or buy food from restaurants? If so, how many times a week do you eat out?

It doesn't matter where you eat. It matters what you eat, or more specifically how much, in calorie terms.

During the pandemic, I've eaten at home much more than before. That reduces temptation a bit, but it really doesn't change anything.

I'd been maintaining a healthy weight for several years before the pandemic started. I ate out a few times a week. What worked for me - might not work for you - was sort of mentally dividing things into routine dining out and special occasions.

There were 2-3 times a week that I had a standing date with other people at particular restaurants. At those places, I'd figure out some set of things I could order that would be calorie appropriate for my goals. (Sometimes, it was asking to modify what was listed on the menu. Many sit-down restaurants will do that. If they do, tip your server extra well.) I might swap a high-calorie standard side (fries, chips) for something more nutrient-dense or lower calorie (side salad, non-sauced veggie). Leave off the bun. Maybe order something a little richer, and box up half of it to take home for another meal. If I wanted a beer with my meal, maybe I'd have a lighter breakfast or lunch that day. Common sense stuff, y'know?

There were cases where I was grabbing a meal out for my convenience, by myself, another few times in a typical week. For those, I figured out where I could go - even fast food places in some cases - and get something that would help me fill out my nutrition for the day within appropriate calories, that I enjoyed eating. Examples: Subway chopped salad (lean protein, dressed with vinegar, guacamole as part of the dressing if available); Taco Bell power bowl, drop the rice, add extra black beans (I'm vegetarian), maybe skip the sour cream; Panera lentil or vegetable soup cup plus small Greek or other salad.

The other possibility was a special occasion: Maybe an event (my birthday?), going out for a special meal with out-of-town visitors, trying a new maybe-expensive special restaurant. For those, I order what sounded good, don't sweat the calories. (This is/was rare, for me. I didn't consider it a "cheat meal" because I think that's a useless concept. I considered it "making decisions that result in a happy, balanced life".) Often the next day I might be more energetic or less hungry because of the extra food, but regardless, it tends to work out OK over time, as long as rare.

Eating at home, I have more regular patterns - general meals I enjoy and repeat periodically - but it's not that much different.

Exercise: As much as possible, I believe in doing things that are so fun that I'd do them if they weren't good for me. Miserable, punitive exercise is optional. It's really totally optional for weight loss: We just get to eat a little more at the same weight loss rate, when active . . . plus it's good for health, strength, mood, etc. Worth doing for its own sake!

I actually started being active (after cancer treatment) in my mid-40s, long before losing weight (like over a decade before). I started experimenting with different activities that sounded manageable and maybe fun, giving each a reasonable try (to get past that "newbie blues" stage where almost anything feels awkward and impossible at first). I started with pretty gentle things, like yoga classes, because I was in terrible shape, and gradually moved on from there. Some things stuck, others didn't.

One thing that happens, IME, is that as fitness improves, more things become manageable and even fun. The horizons open up. Right after cancer treatment, one of my friends asked if I wanted to do a 5 mile bike ride with them. I wasn't sure I could. Years on, last summer, a 20-mile bike ride seemed like a fun way to spend a couple of hours on a nice afternoon (at age 65 then, BTW), no big deal.

Start by just creating a "bias toward movement" in daily life. Stand rather than sit, walk rather than stand, take the stairs, take on the physical home project/chore, park farther from the building, whatever.
Ideally, in the long run, from a health perspective, a person does some cardiovascular exercise, and some strength exercise.

These days, I row (boats when I can, machines when I must), cycle (trails when I can, stationary in Winter), do a little strength training in Winter, take long walks in summer, do some gardening, blah blah blah. It's just fun.

The boring mainstream advice about diet and exercise is decent-ish and free. The USDA "My Plate" nutritional guidance is a reasonable start. So are the MFP default nutrition goals, as long as you don't cut calories stupid-low. As long as you're not starting from a medically diagnosed nutritional deficiency, improving nutrition is a thing you can chip away at gradually, by changing your eating patterns in pleasant ways.

On the exercise front, the government's "work up to 150 minutes per week of moderate aerobic activity, plus 2 days of strength challenge" is reasonable. This isn't rocket surgery, y'know? You don't need some paid-by-the-hour professional to get the basics.

https://www.myplate.gov/
https://health.gov/sites/default/files/2019-09/Physical_Activity_Guidelines_2nd_edition.pdf

Once you've gotten the basics down, then maybe worry about optimizing if something's not working. By then, you'll probably have the knowledge you need to tackle issues yourself, or know where to get it. If not, then use credentialed, degreed professionals.

I'm kind of worried because I kept gaining and gaining weight in the past. Looking back, I chalk it up to eating out too much and eating big portions.

I still don't think eating out per se is a big deal. What matters is what you eat. (If you decide to calorie count, that will help you figure that out.)

Eating big portions? It matters what the food is. If I eat a pound of broccoli - and sometimes I do - that's no big deal. If I eat a pound of brie cheese, that's a pretty big deal. (I could do that, but it would be dumb.)

So, if you personally gain from eating out too much and eating big portions . . . maybe eat out less and eat calorically smaller portions?

You can do this. Don't over-complicate it with trendy doo-dah.

As @snowflake954 said in her sensible post:

The idea is to keep you confused and dependent. Don't be that person--educate yourself. Follow the boards on here. There is a wealth of knowledge. If you don't like low-carb, don't do it.

eleng0413 wrote: »

(snip)

I have 20 lbs to lose. I'm going to try Ann's method. I'll go back to eating four meals a day. I'll continue three days of weight training every week with five days of hour-long walks.

That's a good plan. With 20 pounds to lose, half to three-quarters of a pound a week would be a reasonable loss rate, and it'll take some time for that rate to show up clearly on the scale amongst routine water weight fluctuations.

Think in terms of making the process easy, changing your routine habits so that long-term you can go more on auto pilot when life gets complicated. Staying at a healthy weight long term is the holy grail of weight management, y'know?

Best wishes!

@eleng0413

-- there exists a question about why people may suggest something. peanut butter if you're trying to be satiated by fat and take in SOME protein is not a terrible choice. It wouldn't be mine and I wouldn't consider it a high protein choice. but it is not a terrible choice if you're trying to pack a small volume satisfying meal.

-- I am somewhat confused as to how you log / not log. You mentioned that the nutritionist mentioned that the meals were large? I most certainly have taken my scale to a restaurant and measured how much rice was on my plate. If I was too concerned about optics, I would have been able to take the meal "to go" and take it home to measure. If I was a frequent eater (ask me about McD vanilla cones while I was losing weight, or even chips at my favourite fish and chip shop), I weighed the item 5 or so times and figured out how consistent the portions were (the chips quite. the mcd cone? 10+ samples said it was all over the place but by then I was getting good(er) at guessing the size of the cone)

It is up to YOU to decide what is worthwhile calories to YOU and what isn't.

My personal observation has been that lean proteins are seldom the enemy when it comes to calories.

Sauces and oil and other cooking condiments that are inherent when eating out... different story. Sometimes worthwhile. Other times not.

I was trying to lose weight by eating as little as I could while moving as much as I could back in October 2014. I was having some success. But not really. BECAUSE I was ready to quit because it was too hard and there was no way I could continue doing this for the rest of my life.

Your description of eating sandwiches and salads reminds me of myself at the time. Even though you definitely sound as if you have way more embedded knowledge of nutrition than I did at the time: my favourite one is that I was choosing to eat a McDonald's muffin with jam and sometimes peanut butter over the evil bacon and egg mcmuffin. Or the number of times I didn't eat anything other than a subway meatball sub

Anyway. because it was not sustainable I went looking for an alternative and at the time stumbled on MFP and the forums.

Maybe it is time to take charge of your own nutritional choices? Evaluate dispassionately what works and doesn't work for you. Add more of what works within your limits...

There are many government agencies that have spent a lot of money writing guidelines The food and agricultural organisation of UN (FAO) even collects them conveniently in one spot! https://www.fao.org/nutrition/education/food-based-dietary-guidelines