I’m trying and trying and nada
Replies
-
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
Indeed, but only for a very short time. We should never forget the following structure of science:Unlike some others who've posted, I do suspect that it's possible to see a scale stall via under-eating, from a conspiracy of adaptive thermogenesis and stress-related water retention.
Physics > chemistry > biochemistry > biology > medecine
What that means is that medicine is ultimately subject to the laws of physics. It is arguably more complicated but not outside of it. The impossibility to lose weight is an illusion. Despite the fact that it is incredibly simple to disprove that statement, it has *never* been done. Such is the nature of reality.
Water retention may seemingly make things more difficult, but think of it: if it were really so that it could stall weight loss indefinitely, that would mean we would gradually turn into ever more fragile balloons that ultimately explode and send us into oblivion. I am unaware of such a case having been observed, not even in the most extreme cases of elephanthiasis. That does not mean it does not exist, only that it is so rare that we are unlikely to live long enough to ever be confronted with such a case.
Nine months - the OP's reported timeline - is indeed a very long time. Nonetheless, I think you may underestimate the potential, în a very narrow range of circumstances, and a certain band of calorie intake. I'm not sure, and I certainly can't prove it, though. Nonetheless, in some very particular cases, I think there are enough hints to make it worth n=1 experiments.
There's decent research suggesting that spontaneous movement differences can account for up to low hundreds of calories daily between otherwise similar people, and I'll point out that spontaneous movement adaptation isn't even strictly metabolic. Metabolic adaptation to too-low calories is well documented. (No, I don't mean the Biggest Loser studies. Those are very questionable.) Then there's the odd cortisol effects, as discussed in the article I linked. That part's not about fat.
Reading here for 7+ years, there have also been provocative anecdotes from a variety of people, suggesting that there's a sweet spot intake zone where energy level stays high, nutrition adequate, and avoidable physical stress remains low. Below, energy tanks (perhaps subtly), TDEE appears to drop. But anecdotes for sure aren't data!
Further, while I've never seen research on this point (maybe poor search skills on my part), anecdotally it seems (from reading experiences in the maintenance sub-forum here) that individuals' adaptations vary quite a lot. Some people going to maintenance calories - even maintenance estimated from their own loss data - see quite a sizeable jump in maintenance calorie needs a month or few out for no obvious reason, while others see little such effect.
Yes, cutting calories to some much lower level will always result in fat (or other body tissue) loss and weight loss on the scale long term. It can't not. What I'm suggesting is that isn't always the best, most healthful solution - not necessarily the path to best thriving. It's certainly true that human bodies are dynamic: Calories in affect calories out.
In some narrow cases, like I said, I think it's worth the couple-month experiment(s), vs. just cut-cut-cut. The cost of the experiment(s) is mostly just a few months' time, maybe a small weight gain. Unless morbidly obese to the point of inherent major health risk, that cost could be worth it.
The implicit underpinnings of your argument also have some vulnerabilities, I think. The standard deviation of metabolic rate, per large scale research, is reasonably small. Yes, in theory there can be very extreme outliers, individual people many standard deviations away from the mean. But the probability of being one is very low, y'know?
For clarity, I do believe low-calorie-needs outliers exist. It's just a probability issue: How likely, at what extreme? (I'm seemingly a moderate outlier myself, just in the opposite direction, with only mild hints why.)
I think careful calorie increase experiments can be a rational alternative to cut-cut-cut, in some situations. Your mileage obviously varies. Readers can choose, I guess.
Cheers!3 -
Most PT's have minimal knowledge of nutrition and eating for balance. Most of what they learn is from gym broscience.snowflake954 wrote: »OP is probably gone, but there is something useful to be learned here. OP has a PT. Doesn't say for how long, although says there's been no weight loss for 9 months. What does your PT say? You're paying this person to get results. Your PT has the data needed to resolve your problem---we don't. Reread your 1st post and pretend it's someone else. What advice would you give?
So, OP, grill your PT and if you aren't getting results, find a new one.
Also find it strange that the OP has food allergies and hates to eat. We had another poster like that that popped up every now and again. That poster was also overweight, couldn't lose, but hated food.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I'm sure the good ones have some basic knowledge - and are very good at what they do - personal training - but specialised nutrition is not their area.
If the person who is helping you isnt helping with nutrition or weight loss - see someone who is specialised in that area - ie a qualified dietician.
Depending on the system in your country, you may need to see a GP first to get a referral - and to rule out medical factors first.
1 -
I think you are thinkng the same thing. My point is simply that I wish the language used to be more precise and less oversimplifying. There are a gazillion claims on line that "calories don't count". That is nonsense, and while it is sometimes clear that the authors don't mean this as a literal claim, it often is not or they even go as far as to claim they actually mean it, even when they have proven before that they know the claim is untrue.Yes, cutting calories to some much lower level will always result in fat (or other body tissue) loss and weight loss on the scale long term. It can't not. What I'm suggesting is that isn't always the best, most healthful solution - not necessarily the path to best thriving. It's certainly true that human bodies are dynamic: Calories in affect calories out.
The problem I have is this: many people take this literally and do not understand the reality behind the science. By oversimplifying things, people are being confused and misled into doing things that are simply guiding them down the garden path.
It is also why I always insist they consult a doctor. I have, unfortunately, seen too many dietitians literally claiming that CICO is untrue, and –Oh horror– even some doctors, there are just far fewer of the latter, so the probability that people will be fooled into (potentially dangerous) nonsense is much smaller. We live in an imperfect world, and I submit that we really don't need to add to the misinformation.
As Einstein is reputed to have said: "We can simplify things as much as possible but no more than that".
0 -
Check with your gynecologist. The pill made me gain and hold weight. That could be part of the problem.1
-
Over 20 years of taking two different progesterones, I have gained weight, maintained weight, and lost weight.
I maintained weight while taking an anti-estrogen.1 -
A calorie deficit will always result in weight loss, period. In this particular case one thing is guaranteed, if they were put in a metabolic chamber and consumed 1200 calories and exercised to the extent that they say they are, weight loss would have occurred. Not losing weight for 9 months with the intensity of their exercise and the reported calories consumed is a fairy tale. I suspect this person believes what they're saying. Cheers7
-
Absolutely. There is no way denying that. All types of phenomena may have an influence, but ultimately, an energy deficit will always result in (fat) weight loss. Anything else is impossible, unless the totality of physics is wrong, and given that we are using means of communication here that are based on those physics, that seems unlikely into the extreme. Just because people do not like reality does not make that reality change in any manner. If it were, there would hardly be any fat people on this planet since almost no one wants to be fat, with the possible exception of sumo wrestlers.neanderthin wrote: »A calorie deficit will always result in weight loss, period. People's interpretation of CICO varies it appears. In this particular case one thing is guaranteed, if they were put in a metabolic chamber and consumed 1200 calories and exercised to the extent that they say they are, weight loss would have occurred. Not losing weight for 9 months with the intensity of their exercise and the reported calories consumed is a fairy tale. I suspect this person believes what they're saying. Cheers
0 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
I think you are thinkng the same thing. My point is simply that I wish the language used to be more precise and less oversimplifying. There are a gazillion claims on line that "calories don't count". That is nonsense, and while it is sometimes clear that the authors don't mean this as a literal claim, it often is not or they even go as far as to claim they actually mean it, even when they have proven before that they know the claim is untrue.Yes, cutting calories to some much lower level will always result in fat (or other body tissue) loss and weight loss on the scale long term. It can't not. What I'm suggesting is that isn't always the best, most healthful solution - not necessarily the path to best thriving. It's certainly true that human bodies are dynamic: Calories in affect calories out.
The problem I have is this: many people take this literally and do not understand the reality behind the science. By oversimplifying things, people are being confused and misled into doing things that are simply guiding them down the garden path.
As Einstein is reputed to have said: "We can simplify things as much as possible but no more than that".BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
I think you are thinkng the same thing. My point is simply that I wish the language used to be more precise and less oversimplifying. There are a gazillion claims on line that "calories don't count". That is nonsense, and while it is sometimes clear that the authors don't mean this as a literal claim, it often is not or they even go as far as to claim they actually mean it, even when they have proven before that they know the claim is untrue.Yes, cutting calories to some much lower level will always result in fat (or other body tissue) loss and weight loss on the scale long term. It can't not. What I'm suggesting is that isn't always the best, most healthful solution - not necessarily the path to best thriving. It's certainly true that human bodies are dynamic: Calories in affect calories out.
The problem I have is this: many people take this literally and do not understand the reality behind the science. By oversimplifying things, people are being confused and misled into doing things that are simply guiding them down the garden path.
It is also why I always insist they consult a doctor. I have, unfortunately, seen too many dietitians literally claiming that CICO is untrue, and –Oh horror– even some doctors, there are just far fewer of the latter, so the probability that people will be fooled into (potentially dangerous) nonsense is much smaller. We live in an imperfect world, and I submit that we really don't need to add to the misinformation.
As Einstein is reputed to have said: "We can simplify things as much as possible but no more than that".
What are they saying is untrue, just curious? The reason I say this is because I talked with an intern sitting in for my doctor and she apparently wasn't aware that dietary cholesterol doesn't directly get metabolized into the blood stream and when I asked about K2 she said she never heard of it and that i must have just heard about it over the internet. I had a conversation with my Dr. about it, who is a friend as well, and we got a chuckle.
Anytime something is believed to be "the science" you can bet that there will be scientists still asking questions but not in medical school, that happens mostly later and generally in the PhD level, then go on to become scientists who specialize, conduct experiments, publish their work in peer reviewed publications and for the most part never see the light of day and worst case scenario is misinterpreted and this is only ground work for more interpretation and experimentation. I suspect that mainstream medical is at least a decade behind the current science when it comes to recommendations about health and nutrition and so the general public is pretty much misinformed and in the dark as well. That's just my opinion. Cheers.1 -
I can only agree with that. I remain stunned when I hear medical people claim that CICO is wrong. I realise that some of them mean essentially something like "total calories in - exercise calories out" but are they not supposed to learn the reality of how this actually works in high school? For heaven's sake, even de Lavoisier knew this already in the late 1700s.neanderthin wrote: »What are they saying is untrue, just curious? The reason I say this is because I talked with an intern sitting in for my doctor and she apparently wasn't aware that dietary cholesterol doesn't directly get metabolized into the blood stream and when I asked about K2 she said she never heard of it and if I heard about it over the internet. I had a conversation with my Dr. about it, who is a friend as well, and we got a chuckle.
Anytime something is believed to be "the science" you can bet that there will be scientists still asking questions but not in medical school, that happens mostly later and generally in the PhD level. I suspect that mainstream medical is at least a decade behind the current science when it comes to recommendations about health and nutrition and so the general public is pretty much misinformed as well. That's just my opinion.
1 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
I can only agree with that. I remain stunned when I hear medical people claim that CICO is wrong. I realize that some of them mean essentially something like "total calories in - exercise calories out" but are they not supposed to learn the reality of how this actually works in high school? For heaven's sake, even de Lavoisier knew this already in the late 1700s.neanderthin wrote: »What are they saying is untrue, just curious? The reason I say this is because I talked with an intern sitting in for my doctor and she apparently wasn't aware that dietary cholesterol doesn't directly get metabolized into the blood stream and when I asked about K2 she said she never heard of it and if I heard about it over the internet. I had a conversation with my Dr. about it, who is a friend as well, and we got a chuckle.
Anytime something is believed to be "the science" you can bet that there will be scientists still asking questions but not in medical school, that happens mostly later and generally in the PhD level. I suspect that mainstream medical is at least a decade behind the current science when it comes to recommendations about health and nutrition and so the general public is pretty much misinformed as well. That's just my opinion.
I understand what you're saying but can you explain what they are getting wrong for example? Just for clarification I believe if we're in a deficit we will lose weight.0 -
If no one wants to be fat, and I also believe that. Why do you think 75% of the population is? Do you think people are just gluttons and don't care, or is it something else?BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
Absolutely. There is no way denying that. All types of phenomena may have an influence, but ultimately, an energy deficit will always result in (fat) weight loss. Anything else is impossible, unless the totality of physics is wrong, and given that we are using means of communication here that are based on those physics, that seems unlikely into the extreme. Just because people do not like reality does not make that reality change in any manner. If it were, there would hardly be any fat people on this planet since almost no one wants to be fat, with the possible exception of sumo wrestlers.neanderthin wrote: »A calorie deficit will always result in weight loss, period. People's interpretation of CICO varies it appears. In this particular case one thing is guaranteed, if they were put in a metabolic chamber and consumed 1200 calories and exercised to the extent that they say they are, weight loss would have occurred. Not losing weight for 9 months with the intensity of their exercise and the reported calories consumed is a fairy tale. I suspect this person believes what they're saying. Cheers1 -
That is a good question. As an example of what I mean, here is a video from Deutsche Welle, I am pointing to a fragment where a claim is made and then defended by the infamous Jason Fung:neanderthin wrote: »I understand what you're saying but can you explain what they are getting wrong for example? Just for clarification I believe if we're in a deficit we will lose weight.
https://youtu.be/DboTyNu-FLk?t=482
There are also two videos of presentations by Giles Yeo who is, as far as I can tell, a genuine researcher with a genuine reputation, where you can sort of see an evolution in what he says and essentially ends up contradicting himself about calories. His main thinking point seems to be that just because calorie counts are often wrong, this is poor science and it should just be abandoned. The thing I like about him is that he doesn't seem to be able (or willing?) to apply his claims, and is clearly overweight, but I need a little more time to find the exact spots. The videos are on the site of the Royal Institution.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
That is the whole point I am trying to make: they simply ingest too much energy, i.e. they overeat. I happen to have been one of them. I also know that my overeating was not because I didn't care, I was always hungry, and if I tried to eat less, I had stomach pains, nausea and vomiting. With willpower, I managed to lose about 50 kg, but it was so excruciating that there came a time, about 4 years ago, that I simply gave up and shot back up, around 25 or 30 kg if I remember. There was one single cause: I ate too much, but there was something that made me consciously choose to eat too much, namely exactly this pain and the rest. And then, an endocrinologist told me to be careful with carbs.BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »If no one wants to be fat, and I also believe that. Why do you think 75% of the population is? Do you think people are just gluttons and don't care, or is it something else?
I went extremist, stopped eating rice, bread (I always baked my own because I hated the sugar, salt and oil content of industrial bread) using my own "recipe", beans, lentils, fruit, starchy vegetables. And that somehow eliminated the pain and the rest (which was so bad, I once told a friend that my only desire was euthanasia, my life was horrible). As a result, I have now lost almost 60 kg, and am on my way to my ideal weight, whatever that is.
My point is that I never became fat because of hormones, medications, whatever other excuse. It is very possible and even likely that some such mechanism(s) was or were responsible for the pain, nausea and vomiting, but they did not make me fat by some miraculous non-energy-based mysterious means. I became fat because I ate too much and for no other reason. Because this clearly pathological motivation had been eliminated, it became an issue of "just saying no" to an excessive energy intake without any unsurmountable obstacles and to adjusting that intake downward to keep the weight loss going. That is not the entire story, but it is the essence of it. MFP does not allow me to be more precise, and I understand their reasons. I don't like it, but I don't own the site, so I obey its rules and its interpretations of them. I can also say that there is nothing essential missing from this story, but it is why I am not stating numbers.0 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
That is a good question. As an example of what I mean, here is a video from Deutsche Welle, I am pointing to a fragment where a claim is made and then defended by the infamous Jason Fung:neanderthin wrote: »I understand what you're saying but can you explain what they are getting wrong for example? Just for clarification I believe if we're in a deficit we will lose weight.https://youtu.be/DboTyNu-FLk?t=482
There are also two videos of presentations by Giles Yeo who is, as far as I can tell, a genuine researcher with a genuine reputation, where you can sort of see an evolution in what he says and essentially ends up contradicting himself about calories. His main thinking point seems to be that just because calorie counts are often wrong, this is poor science and it should just be abandoned. The thing I like about him is that he doesn't seem to be able (or willing?) to apply his claims, and is clearly overweight, but I need a little more time to find the exact spots. The videos are on the site of the Royal Institution.
Right, I'm hearing more about this Fung guy (no pun intended). Anyway it appears what Fung is saying basically is physics (CICO, thermodynamics) and human physiology (organs, hormones, cells) are different sciences. Anyway, I wasn't thinking of just opinion on this matter which this video is, but more of the science behind it. Thanks I appreciate the effort. Cheers.0 -
In that case, you may like this video of a Ted talk by Ruben Meerman that nicely explains what almost no one talks about, i.e. the connection between "calories" and "weight":neanderthin wrote: »Right, I'm hearing more about this Fung guy (no pun intended). Anyway it appears what Fung is saying basically is physics (CICO, thermodynamics) and human physiology (organs, hormones, cells) are different sciences. Anyway, I wasn't thinking of just opinion on this matter which this video is, but more of the science behind it. Thanks I appreciate the effort. Cheers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuIlsN32WaE
0 -
And here are the other videos by Giles Yeo I was talking about:
https://youtu.be/88tWJ1p5d4o?t=263
and then the rather unfunny change I was talking about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQJ0Z0DRumg
Giles Yeo is not only a scientist (geneticist) but also a presenter at the BBC. The one thing I have in common with him is that we both like pork scratchings ^_^. Pork scratchings, by the way, give me satiation, but no satiety, and I stay away from them because when I eat them, I suddenly want to devour a ton of other food as well, so I abstain.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
If no one wants to be fat, and I also believe that. Why do you think 75% of the population is? Do you think people are just gluttons and don't care, or is it something else?BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
Absolutely. There is no way denying that. All types of phenomena may have an influence, but ultimately, an energy deficit will always result in (fat) weight loss. Anything else is impossible, unless the totality of physics is wrong, and given that we are using means of communication here that are based on those physics, that seems unlikely into the extreme. Just because people do not like reality does not make that reality change in any manner. If it were, there would hardly be any fat people on this planet since almost no one wants to be fat, with the possible exception of sumo wrestlers.neanderthin wrote: »A calorie deficit will always result in weight loss, period. People's interpretation of CICO varies it appears. In this particular case one thing is guaranteed, if they were put in a metabolic chamber and consumed 1200 calories and exercised to the extent that they say they are, weight loss would have occurred. Not losing weight for 9 months with the intensity of their exercise and the reported calories consumed is a fairy tale. I suspect this person believes what they're saying. Cheers
IMO, one contributing factor is that most of us struggle psychologically to reduce current pleasure in order to achieve long-term benefits. If the tradeoff also requires patience, persistence, etc. . . . even harder.
5 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
In that case, you may like this video of a Ted talk by Ruben Meerman that nicely explains what almost no one talks about, i.e. the connection between "calories" and "weight":neanderthin wrote: »Right, I'm hearing more about this Fung guy (no pun intended). Anyway it appears what Fung is saying basically is physics (CICO, thermodynamics) and human physiology (organs, hormones, cells) are different sciences. Anyway, I wasn't thinking of just opinion on this matter which this video is, but more of the science behind it. Thanks I appreciate the effort. Cheers.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuIlsN32WaE
Eat less, move more and keep breathing lol. I enjoyed that. It doesn't address the question I had; it just lets people know where the energy goes when we lose weight.
The other highlight was, his astonishment that most people didn't know that human Co2 doesn't contribute to global warming, and that's a lot of Co2, and similarity why methane from cows doesn't contribute to global warming. Funny how people are easily indoctrinated into a belief just by simply hearing it often enough. Cheers.1 -
Maybe think about consulting with a weight management facility that specializes. Weight loss occurs when you eat less calories than your body burns. That’s fact. You have consistently done this, with no results. This doesn’t sound like anything random people on the internet can solve. The best we can offer on this, is the result of our own experience.2
-
In that case, you have to be more precise about the question you have, or I have overlooked it. Both are possible.neanderthin wrote: »It doesn't address the question I had; it just lets people know where the energy goes when we lose weight.
There is a difference here. the CO2 from people, cows and other critters is essentially recycled CO2 from the athmosphere. However, the methane from cows and yes, people and other critters, is also recycled from CO2 from the athmosphere but it is more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2, so that is a net contribution to global warming, except it is a relatively short-lived one, so it may not be as important as people think. This article from UC Davis will shed some light on that: https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/why-methane-cattle-warms-climate-differently-co2-fossil-fuelsneanderthin wrote: »The other highlight was, his astonishment that most people didn't know that human Co2 doesn't contribute to global warming, and that's a lot of Co2, and similarity why methane from cows doesn't contribute to global warming. Funny how people are easily indoctrinated into a belief just by simply hearing it often enough. Cheers.
But you are right. The trouble is the same one as the one that interests us here (weight loss/gain/maintenance): because things are being presented in an oversimplified form people think they understand the issues but they don't. One of the clearest examples with respect to weight loss is that people don't seem to be able to distinguish between health improvement and weight loss. While the two are most definitely related, they are also quite distinct from one another.
As Einstein is reputed to have said: "We can simplify things as much as possible, but no more than that". Unfortunately, if you don't oversimplify, people consider you a nerd or a pedant, and lose interest. If you do oversimplify, they will conclude the wrong things and eventually accuse you of lying. In other words, you can't win, which probably/possibly explains (partly) why many scientists just don't want to communicate with the public at large.
3 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
In that case, you have to be more precise about the question you have, or I have overlooked it. Both are possible.neanderthin wrote: »It doesn't address the question I had; it just lets people know where the energy goes when we lose weight.
There is a difference here. the CO2 from people, cows and other critters is essentially recycled CO2 from the athmosphere. However, the methane from cows and yes, people and other critters, is also recycled from CO2 from the athmosphere but it is more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2, so that is a net contribution to global warming, except it is a relatively short-lived one, so it may not be as important as people think. This article from UC Davis will shed some light on that: https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/why-methane-cattle-warms-climate-differently-co2-fossil-fuelsneanderthin wrote: »The other highlight was, his astonishment that most people didn't know that human Co2 doesn't contribute to global warming, and that's a lot of Co2, and similarity why methane from cows doesn't contribute to global warming. Funny how people are easily indoctrinated into a belief just by simply hearing it often enough. Cheers.
But you are right. The trouble is the same one as the one that interests us here (weight loss/gain/maintenance): because things are being presented in an oversimplified form people think they understand the issues but they don't. One of the clearest examples with respect to weight loss is that people don't seem to be able to distinguish between health improvement and weight loss. While the two are most definitely related, they are also quite distinct from one another.
As Einstein is reputed to have said: "We can simplify things as much as possible, but no more than that". Unfortunately, if you don't oversimplify, people consider you a nerd or a pedant, and lose interest. If you do oversimplify, they will conclude the wrong things and eventually accuse you of lying. In other words, you can't win, which probably/possibly explains (partly) why many scientists just don't want to communicate with the public at large.
More powerful because it doesn't dissipate for a while, 10 or 12 years, but it's an event that has no effect on the accumulated effect for global warming, why because global warming is an event that is caused by accumulative effects and progresses because of those accumulated effects over time......basically it's word salad. And yes, I agree with your final statements. Cheers.0 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »And here are the other videos by Giles Yeo I was talking about:https://youtu.be/88tWJ1p5d4o?t=263
and then the rather unfunny change I was talking about:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQJ0Z0DRumg
Giles Yeo is not only a scientist (geneticist) but also a presenter at the BBC. The one thing I have in common with him is that we both like pork scratchings ^_^. Pork scratchings, by the way, give me satiation, but no satiety, and I stay away from them because when I eat them, I suddenly want to devour a ton of other food as well, so I abstain.
I like this guy, a scientist with a bed side manner and a sense of humor, it's refreshing. Anyway, I see where you're going with this, and it does appear contradictory. In the second video he goes to great length to explain what a calorie actually is and explains macronutrients and how that plays into dietary preferences etc. but ultimately, he says that calories matter, and we can't lose weight without being a calorie deficit and then finishes up by saying that's why calories don't matter. Haha, yeah, I can see why that would be confusing. His primary focus and research is why people eat, their preferences the science around hormones that control appetite etc but he also recognizes as does every scientist in that field, I'd imagine, that ultimately a person needs to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight and recognizes that fact by giving the calorie it's due in this second video.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
If no one wants to be fat, and I also believe that. Why do you think 75% of the population is? Do you think people are just gluttons and don't care, or is it something else?BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
Absolutely. There is no way denying that. All types of phenomena may have an influence, but ultimately, an energy deficit will always result in (fat) weight loss. Anything else is impossible, unless the totality of physics is wrong, and given that we are using means of communication here that are based on those physics, that seems unlikely into the extreme. Just because people do not like reality does not make that reality change in any manner. If it were, there would hardly be any fat people on this planet since almost no one wants to be fat, with the possible exception of sumo wrestlers.neanderthin wrote: »A calorie deficit will always result in weight loss, period. People's interpretation of CICO varies it appears. In this particular case one thing is guaranteed, if they were put in a metabolic chamber and consumed 1200 calories and exercised to the extent that they say they are, weight loss would have occurred. Not losing weight for 9 months with the intensity of their exercise and the reported calories consumed is a fairy tale. I suspect this person believes what they're saying. Cheers
IMO, one contributing factor is that most of us struggle psychologically to reduce current pleasure in order to achieve long-term benefits. If the tradeoff also requires patience, persistence, etc. . . . even harder.
Yeah, you've mentioned this before, and I absolutely agree. Food is emotional and the connected pathway to pleasure is a long and windy road for sure. The brain is inexplicitly connected to our body mostly through our gut microbiome and our overall health in this regard, do have profound negative effects when they're not communicating properly. There is a hemostasis at work here that has governed homo sapiens pretty well for millennia that science needs to work out because I believe it's very basic to who we are and like I mentioned before our reductive methodology has thrown a wrench into the mechanism and as far as I'm concerned I'd rather talk to some village shaman than a modern city Dr. and I guarantee I would feel better after. haha, anyway cheers.0 -
The same reason 75% want to play the piano but don't. Lack of desire to do what it takes to ensure what they want. Lots of people in our society today won't do what it takes to achieve what they believe they want unless they really really want it.neanderthin wrote: »
If no one wants to be fat, and I also believe that. Why do you think 75% of the population is? Do you think people are just gluttons and don't care, or is it something else?BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
Absolutely. There is no way denying that. All types of phenomena may have an influence, but ultimately, an energy deficit will always result in (fat) weight loss. Anything else is impossible, unless the totality of physics is wrong, and given that we are using means of communication here that are based on those physics, that seems unlikely into the extreme. Just because people do not like reality does not make that reality change in any manner. If it were, there would hardly be any fat people on this planet since almost no one wants to be fat, with the possible exception of sumo wrestlers.neanderthin wrote: »A calorie deficit will always result in weight loss, period. People's interpretation of CICO varies it appears. In this particular case one thing is guaranteed, if they were put in a metabolic chamber and consumed 1200 calories and exercised to the extent that they say they are, weight loss would have occurred. Not losing weight for 9 months with the intensity of their exercise and the reported calories consumed is a fairy tale. I suspect this person believes what they're saying. Cheers
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition 4 -
The same reason 75% want to play the piano but don't. Lack of desire to do what it takes to ensure what they want. Lots of people in our society today won't do what it takes to achieve what they believe they want unless they really really want it.neanderthin wrote: »
If no one wants to be fat, and I also believe that. Why do you think 75% of the population is? Do you think people are just gluttons and don't care, or is it something else?BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
Absolutely. There is no way denying that. All types of phenomena may have an influence, but ultimately, an energy deficit will always result in (fat) weight loss. Anything else is impossible, unless the totality of physics is wrong, and given that we are using means of communication here that are based on those physics, that seems unlikely into the extreme. Just because people do not like reality does not make that reality change in any manner. If it were, there would hardly be any fat people on this planet since almost no one wants to be fat, with the possible exception of sumo wrestlers.neanderthin wrote: »A calorie deficit will always result in weight loss, period. People's interpretation of CICO varies it appears. In this particular case one thing is guaranteed, if they were put in a metabolic chamber and consumed 1200 calories and exercised to the extent that they say they are, weight loss would have occurred. Not losing weight for 9 months with the intensity of their exercise and the reported calories consumed is a fairy tale. I suspect this person believes what they're saying. Cheers
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Well, we can only hope they want to really really play piano sooner than later. Cheers.0 -
serpentegena wrote: »Based on simple logic, your body is likely in starvation mode. You aren't getting enough food for basic physical processes! If you are jogging and rock-climbing, activities I also do, you need a heck of a lot more than 1224 calories a day!! You are probably losing muscle mass, and that further slows your metabolism. This is really bad. You need to start eating more a day, and forget about "losing" weight for now. Start gaining muscle. Muscle weighs more than fat. Expect gaining some weight, but start by getting healthier, not lighter on the scale. Then (maybe in a few months) you can refocus on losing fat.
FFS, can't we have a message when posting a reply that starvation mode does not exist? What you're describing means that various organs suddenly stop working and instead the body uses the energy to fuel activities. Can you explain how that works? But yes, you are right, TO is not able to do this on 1200 calories per day.
Hello yirara. I apologize for using words that made you curse. Perhaps I should have said "adaptive thermogenesis" instead (which is the scientifically substantiated equivalent according to Healthline: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/starvation-mode), and further patronized the OP with scholarly expressions that go over their heads, without actually trying to help. Instead, I focused on getting out a helpful hint in an attention-grabbing formula, trying to steer them into a constructive direction.
But thank you for criticizing my comment. It reminded me that my time is better spent perfecting my deadlift than talking at strangers online.3 -
serpentegena wrote: »serpentegena wrote: »Based on simple logic, your body is likely in starvation mode. You aren't getting enough food for basic physical processes! If you are jogging and rock-climbing, activities I also do, you need a heck of a lot more than 1224 calories a day!! You are probably losing muscle mass, and that further slows your metabolism. This is really bad. You need to start eating more a day, and forget about "losing" weight for now. Start gaining muscle. Muscle weighs more than fat. Expect gaining some weight, but start by getting healthier, not lighter on the scale. Then (maybe in a few months) you can refocus on losing fat.
FFS, can't we have a message when posting a reply that starvation mode does not exist? What you're describing means that various organs suddenly stop working and instead the body uses the energy to fuel activities. Can you explain how that works? But yes, you are right, TO is not able to do this on 1200 calories per day.
Hello yirara. I apologize for using words that made you curse. Perhaps I should have said "adaptive thermogenesis" instead (which is the scientifically substantiated equivalent according to Healthline: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/starvation-mode), and further patronized the OP with scholarly expressions that go over their heads, without actually trying to help. Instead, I focused on getting out a helpful hint in an attention-grabbing formula, trying to steer them into a constructive direction.
But thank you for criticizing my comment. It reminded me that my time is better spent perfecting my deadlift than talking at strangers online.
"Starvation Mode" is click-bait. Read up on the "Minnesota Experiment-Starvation Mode" and see if it's helpful for the OP. The correct terms are important. People are on here to educate themselves, so we don't presume what will go over someone's head.7 -
You totally get it. If you scratch out the title, and a small part at the end, you end up with a completely reasonable lecture. If you read the comments, you will see why the title (but also the little part at the end) infuriates me.neanderthin wrote: »I like this guy, a scientist with a bed side manner and a sense of humor, it's refreshing. Anyway, I see where you're going with this, and it does appear contradictory. In the second video he goes to great length to explain what a calorie actually is and explains macronutrients and how that plays into dietary preferences etc. but ultimately, he says that calories matter, and we can't lose weight without being a calorie deficit and then finishes up by saying that's why calories don't matter. Haha, yeah, I can see why that would be confusing. His primary focus and research is why people eat, their preferences the science around hormones that control appetite etc but he also recognizes as does every scientist in that field, I'd imagine, that ultimately a person needs to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight and recognizes that fact by giving the calorie it's due in this second video.
There are some people (possibly as a result of the quacks who make similar claims) out there who take the "calories don't count" nonsense literally. It amazes me, but there it is. It amazes me especially because people who have cars or laptops, absolutely know this stuff is not to be taken literally, but somehow, when it comes to food, they do, they overeat and then wonder why they don't lose weight.
Just because calories measurements are flawed, does not mean they don't count. It is why I always say they are to be taken as maximum values, just as is done for cars and even more so for laptops, mobile phones and other battery-driven devices.
All energy, without exception, requires energy to be extracted and converted into actual usable energy. The only people for whom that could be a genuine problem are the ones who need to gain weight, because they have to eat a bit more than the raw numbers suggest, but if you have to lose weight, it will just give you a tiny little bit of extra boost downwards and –much more likely– help to correct a little bit for the underestimates most people make.
0 -
I had a look at this because I am always puzzled why people take this starvation mode nonsense so seriously. My (tentative) conclusion has always been it is born out of a desire to lose weight without making an effort. I found the article quite good, especially the part about calories in calories out. It should be able to explain to people who believe CICO "does not work" why that claim is wrong.serpentegena wrote: »
2 -
IMO, one contributing factor is that most of us struggle psychologically to reduce current pleasure in order to achieve long-term benefits. If the tradeoff also requires patience, persistence, etc. . . . even harder.
I agree with that, I think it is the original idea behind the "willpower" claim, which is why I tend to say that once my pain-nausea-vomiting problem was solved (which took me some time to feel secure enough about) it turned weight loss into a simple willpower game, with the result that I lost the weight I have quite smoothly. "Just say no" has become relatively easy for me, because of the torture I had to endure (and actually did endure for quite some time) before my big break. In comparison with that, saying no to temptations isn't much of a challenge anymore, perspectives change.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions